Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New York Pistol Permit Owner List Leaked

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the time-for-a-mashup dept.

Privacy 899

An anonymous reader writes "On Friday, The Journal News caved under pressure of gun advocates and shut down the interactive maps which contained the names and addresses of licensed gun owners in upstate New York. The maps are still visible on the site, however they are simply static images. The Journal News published the interactive maps on December 23 which caused significant backlash. In a similar move, Gawker published the names of licensed gun owners in New York City without addresses. New York state Senator Greg Ball (Republican) called the removal of the data a 'huge win.' On Saturday, an anonymous user leaked the raw data used to build The Journal News maps."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

rob this person for guns here (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638569)

i have to say i agree
all a criminal would have to do is sit there wait till you leave and go get a few

Or the reverse (2)

sarysa (1089739) | about 2 years ago | (#42638611)

It easily be treated as a "don't mess with these folks" list, as well...

Re:Or the reverse (5, Insightful)

aurispector (530273) | about 2 years ago | (#42638657)

Either way, it's really not anyone's business. Should we also be putting people's personal information online for current driver's license holders?

What if one of those women holding a CHL did so owing to death threats from a jealous ex? They just put her life in danger.

Or, if you want to up the "obnoxious" factor, what if they published the names and addresses of women who have had abortions?

"Outing" people is a really low political tactic and needs to be illegal.

Re:Or the reverse (1, Troll)

sentientbeing (688713) | about 2 years ago | (#42638679)

There is no public interest knowing if a woman has had an abortion. If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

Re:Or the reverse (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638705)

There is no public interest knowing if a woman has had an abortion.

Unfortunately, there are many people who disagree with you on this.

Re:Or the reverse (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638713)

As a member of the public, I am interested in if my neighbor had an abortion because I like to gossip. As a matter of fact, while in high school and college when it was found out that a woman/girl had an abortion there was much public interest.

The list doesn't say whether your neighbors are carrying loaded guns, it says that they are legally able to carry guns even though they may not even own guns anymore.

Re:Or the reverse (5, Insightful)

JakeBurn (2731457) | about 2 years ago | (#42638727)

And what would knowing do for you? Your neighbor, instead of hiding the fact that he has weapons like criminals do, follows the law and registers his legally obtained weapons. This information is already available to see. What people are mad about is when some asshat decides to conveniently collect all of this information so that only criminals have a use for it. Oh, criminals and idiots who think law-abiding citizens should be ostracized or treated differently because they are exercising their rights and acting in a responsible manner.

Re:Or the reverse (0, Flamebait)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42638767)

And what would knowing do for you?

It would tell me who not to trade with, who not to vote for, and where not to live, among other things.

I can vote with my feet and my ballots, and my votes go for pacifism.

Re:Or the reverse (0, Troll)

peragrin (659227) | about 2 years ago | (#42638831)

what happens when pacifism meets aggressive violent people?

Not everyone is reasonable. take a look at Saudi Arabia which beheaded a immigrant woman for doing a bad job.

Someone has to defend your right to be a pacifist.

Also christians have a long history of killing people who have had abortions.

Re:Or the reverse (-1, Troll)

Bengie (1121981) | about 2 years ago | (#42638941)

Also christians have a long history of killing people.

I like to consider myself a real Christian, so I know just how judgmental many of these fake Christians can be.

Re:Or the reverse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638839)

and my votes go for pacifism.

There is so much fallacy in your post, I don't even know where to begin.

So I'll just say "good riddance" to ya. Wouldn't want you as my neighbor either.

Re:Or the reverse (5, Insightful)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about 2 years ago | (#42638847)

You can only have pacifism, because someone else has a gun. That gun is not necessarily the shotgun I use for squirrel hunting on Saturdays. It is the gun that the Marine carries every day in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Germany, or the Azores, or anywhere else our troops have gone, and died to. Peace is a great thing to wish for, but someone else has to be put in harm's way for you to acheive it. Had it not been for guns, the world would be a much different place right now. We would still be honoring Queen Elizabeth as our monarch. It's even possible that some of us would still be the property of the rich people.
You may not like guns, and that's fine. But don't forget all the good that people wielding guns have done in the world. And don't forget all the evil that men wielding guns have done in this world either.

Re:Or the reverse (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638863)

Right back at ya! Knowing who has had an abortion would enable me to know who not to trade with, who not to vote for, and where not to live.

I can vote with my feet and with my wallet, and my votes go for life.

Re:Or the reverse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638735)

It's none of your business, you paranoid asshole.

Re:Or the reverse (5, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#42638737)

If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

And I want a pony. The issue is if you have the right to know. He has the constitutional right to those weapons. We may not (yet) have constitutional rights to privacy, but your wanting to know doesn't mean you have to know. Besides, if he has a concealed carry permit, the whole point is that you don't know.

Re:Or the reverse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638829)

if a woman is willing to take one life, she would be willing to take another.

Re:Or the reverse (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638925)

As long as her taking of life is limited to life that is less than a few months old and happens to be inside her uterus, then that's hardly relevant to the public, who are not at risk in any way. I understand you're trolling, but I'd still be amused if you could find a (significant) correlation between having abortion and ending postnatal life. Surprise me.

Re:Or the reverse (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about 2 years ago | (#42638835)

Unless of course it was a publicly subsidized abortion.

Re:Or the reverse (2, Interesting)

niiler (716140) | about 2 years ago | (#42638951)

It seems this poor fellow was modded "troll" for expressing a legitimate opinion that is contrary to that of many of the gun proponents on this site. People are entitled to their opinions. If this guy was rude, it would be a different story.

Re:Or the reverse (1)

schn (1795404) | about 2 years ago | (#42638801)

if they carry guns for self defence, knowing they do shouldn't change anything because criminals always have guns anyway right!

Re:Or the reverse (3, Interesting)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 years ago | (#42638985)

Agreed, I live in the area, and i know the 2 homeowners who have been broken into since this has happened. Nothing but the gun safes were touched, coincidence? I think not

Re:Or the reverse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638773)

Or how about the real reverse. Show all names and address of houses without guns.

Re:rob this person for guns here (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#42638625)

And rob unarmed people everywhere else.

Re:rob this person for guns here (2, Insightful)

Let's All Be Chinese (2654985) | about 2 years ago | (#42638649)

Agree with what? With creating convenient maps of information that's already somewhat public and therefore entirely public in the American No-Curtains-So-No-Privacy-For-You view? With protesting that convenient map? With taking revenge on the complainers by, er, dumping the adress of every permit holder whether they're part of the discussion or not?

There are a few issues here, not least of which is that this approach to privacy isn't tenable in the modern age with its proliferation of convenient data mangling apparatuses--even though there's a risk to trying to burgle a known gun owner. Or how exercising a constitution-enshrined right makes one a target--note that this trend in American Society[tm] bothers me independent of having that right, which I don't.

But what bothers me most is how the whole gun thing is again diving for the trenches. Much like how "seven bullets" is completely arbitrary, as is the labeling of some kinds of ammunition "cop killer", as are so many silly knee-jerk measures. As is the rallying "strategy" of the NRA, for that matter.

This isn't a mature discussion. And you're supposed to be the shining beacon of democracy for the whole world. All of you. Grow up.

Re:rob this person for guns here (1, Funny)

Goaway (82658) | about 2 years ago | (#42638651)

Remember, guns are your best protection against crime! But don't you dare tell anyone I have them because they attract crime!

Go USA (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638581)

I'm pro-war, pro-torture, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-life and a fervent supporter of freedom of speech as long as that speech doesn't concern me.

Re:Go USA (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about 2 years ago | (#42638609)

Straw men, straw men everywhere. Not to mention hyperbole, ad hominem, argument from ignorance, proof by verbosity, shifting the burden of proof... I could go on and on. but I won't bother. I just said this so anyone reading your post would stop and think a minute.

Now crawl back under your bridge.

Re:Go USA (1)

Let's All Be Chinese (2654985) | about 2 years ago | (#42638665)

That merely lists the main ingredients for what appears to be the gold standard for political discourse in the country. Including that last bit. Yes.

Re:Go USA (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#42638641)

Freedom of speech guarantees speech free of governmental censorship. It doesn't defend you from public opinion. If anything, this case strenghtened free speech because it showed its opponents that even without governmental oversight, unacceptable speech is not without consequences.

Re:Go USA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638715)

>>Freedom of speech guarantees speech free of governmental censorship.
So then we need the whole of the United States to put Obama in his place. We need to call a spade a spade... on Monday everybody within earshot of him needs to shout out: 'LIAR!!'
He hasn't protected the Constitution of the United States, and has also broken his Oath of Office. He knows this, which is why he's taking his Oath of Office today IN PRIVATE, where few people will see or hear it live and in person. Transparency? What transparency? That turned out to be just another one of his lies, ad infinitum...

Re:Go USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638819)

Meds...

Re:Go USA (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about 2 years ago | (#42638843)

Don't forget Obama ordering the murders of Americans overseas without due process.

Re:Go USA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638655)

You say that as if there is anything wrong with that.

Own goal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638585)

So they're proving that they're responsible adults who can handle a device designed to kill people, by threatening violence against those who publish publically available records?

please think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638595)

more children are killed by firearms each year than by the people listed in certain databases who have already fully paid their debt to society yet will continue to be persecuted by the public, by the media and by the government, forever.

Re:please think of the children (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638673)

Well excuuuuuuuuse me if I think that these registered pedophiles should be monitored, tracked and scrutinized at every turn because they were not put to death or locked away for life.

Firearms kill more <fill in the blank> than <something else>! It's true! <These> kill more children each year than pedophiles, so let's ban those!

I am not a gun owner but I support their rights.
I am not a pedophile, or pedophile apologist, and I do not support their rights.

Re:please think of the children (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42638739)

Thus speaks someone who thinks with his guts and not his brain.

When did all sex offenders become pedophiles? Most of them are not.

When did all pedophiles become criminals? Most of them never commit any crimes. You don't commit rapes because you are sexually attracted to women (or men), do you?

Do you know the recidivism rate for child molestation compared to other crimes? Like, for instance, gun crime?

Did you know that when you are willing to deny some people their rights, you also say that it's okay to deny you your rights when you disgust enough people?

All violent/abusive crimes are bad, whether they're sexual or not. But people are capable of changing for the better, which is why we do not give them life in prison, and consider their debt to society paid when they have served their sentence. In civilized societies, at least.

Re:please think of the children (0)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about 2 years ago | (#42638889)

We are not denying them their rights, when they commit a crime and break the law, they are voluntarily giving up their rights.

Re:please think of the children (5, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#42638901)

We are not denying them their rights, when they commit a crime and break the law, they are voluntarily giving up their rights.

What rights, and for how long? There's a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the Bill of Rights for a reason; the punishment must fit the crime. In the case of sex crimes, the lifelong punishment that comes after all jail time has been served, fines paid, etc. is almost always excessive.

Re:please think of the children (0)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about 2 years ago | (#42638981)

All of their rights. It may be cruel, but it's not unusual, (in the sense that all felons are subject to it) It may not even be cruel. Cruel and unusual is one of those open to intrepretation like freedom of religion, or the right to bear arms.
In my limited understanding (I've never bothered to look it up) all felons lose the right to own firearms, and to vote. I think these are sensible precautions, to protect society from lawlessness. I still propose that the rights are not taken from them, but that they are voluntarily giving them up by comitting a crime. It's a nuanced statement for sure, but again, it's correct to me in my limited understanding, I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way, and I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks I'm wrong.

Thank God for the our First Amendment rights to have this discussion.

Re:please think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638891)

a) It was obviously a joke. A very bad joke.

b) Do not feed the trolls.

Thank you.

Re:please think of the children (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638965)

Spoken like a real kiddy fucker.

Re:please think of the children (3, Funny)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#42638761)

It's true! <These> kill more children each year than pedophiles, so let's ban those!

To be fair, I don't think foot fetishists kill many children at all. It's kind of not their thing.

Re:please think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638743)

Yes, because most sex offenders do other things like molest, rape, etc. If they were killers, they'd still be in jail.

subject (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638607)

how can one leak data which has been made available through a FOIA request?

Re:subject (4, Insightful)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about 2 years ago | (#42638621)

If there should ever be a limit to FOIA this is it. The leaks tell every scum in New York where to steal a weapon.

But you bring up an excellent point.

Re:subject (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638629)

There's a slight difference between publicly available and trivially accessible.

Personally I worry a tiny bit that this will create more of a gray market in gun transactions among people who would've been willing to comply with regulation up to the point where their privacy was threatened.

Re:subject (1)

watice (1347709) | about 2 years ago | (#42638687)

Wouldn't somebody who was worried about their privacy being threatened feel even more threatened by the threat of losing their freedom, and therefore their privacy? NY has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country, especially in NYC.

Shopping List (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638615)

Cool, now I know which homes to break into.

Re:Shopping List (1, Funny)

Goaway (82658) | about 2 years ago | (#42638653)

And here I thought people bought guns to protect themselves against crime. I guess there are many things I still don't understand about guns.

Re:Shopping List (2)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 2 years ago | (#42638695)

And here I thought people bought guns to protect themselves against crime. I guess there are many things I still don't understand about guns.

There are arguments for both directions in this. Some people will argue that because guns are a high value commodity on the black market, they are a lucrative target for theft. Others will argue that there is an increased risk of getting injured or killed in an attempt to rob these homes.

Re:Shopping List (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#42638729)

..and others would argue that homes not on the list just because that much safer to rob from

Re:Shopping List (2, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#42638983)

Some people will argue that because guns are a high value commodity on the black market, they are a lucrative target for theft.

Isn't it curious that many, if not most, of those same people argue that prohibition simply fuels a black market, like the "War On (some) Drugs" and alcohol prohibition?

If guns were less-tightly regulated, taxed, licensed, registered, etc, criminals wouldn't find law-abiding gun-owner's homes and their guns such an attractive target, due to the lack of high payoff along with the risk of being shot.

Not saying that convicted violent felons or those legally judged to be incapable of responsible gun ownership (it shouldn't be because you were given Prozac for 6 months, 15 years ago, after your wife and kids died in a fire) should be able to own guns.

Why is it any different today than it was 30 or 40 years ago? I remember that US citizens weren't such pansies back then. Guns weren't something that terrified so many people. Bad things, shootings, happened occasionally then as well. But, people didn't get so frothing-at-the-mouth about the guns. They got upset at the person/people who committed the act, and at law enforcement and government, if they screwed up.

I can guarantee you one thing. More people in this world are killed by governments than by regular civilians shooting each other.

Government is one thing. It is raw force . That's it. That's all it is. You can draft all the pretty laws, acts, constitutions, charters, whatever you'd like. None of that, in the end, can stop raw force. Only a threat of force from the citizens themselves, if it goes too far and becomes too tyrannical/authoritarian, can keep it in check.

You want to find out what a boot stamping on a human face, forever, feels like? Remove the only check to raw force. "Checks and balances" isn't only about the three branches of the US government. There's a fourth check, an armed citizenry. Remove that check as a significant deterrent, and balance is gone. When balance is gone, so is individual liberty and freedom.

Strat

Re:Shopping List (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638763)

Pretend I'm a gun owner and only own 1 gun. Assuming I had the legal permits, I could carry it with me but you know that I go to church. In some states it is illegal to carry a gun to church, so as a person that legally owns a gun and took the time to legally get all the permits etc. I leave my gun at home. You being my lawbreaking neighbor break into my house while I am at church and take my gun. Sure, I locked it into a safe, but you knew that I would be gone for several hours and had time to break into the safe.

Or now that I have my name in the paper, someone that lives far from me knows my name and address. It's not hard to do a facebook/google/whatever search and find out where I work, my habits, hobbies, etc. so that they can pick and choose a time when I will be unlikely to be home.

Or consider this scenario. I shoot targets on weekends and the idea of killing a person is appalling to me. You come to my house while I am home and you threaten me and I give you my gun without a shot fired. Many people use guns for defense, many don't and couldn't/wouldn't use a gun to defend themselves because they know that they are not able to kill someone else.

they should post a list of Blacks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638627)

they should post the names and addresses of Black people.

correction (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638675)

Around these parts well don't call them blacks but instead prefer to call them "niggers".

If you want to see niggers look up the local address of the zoo. They call them "monkeys" but these are basically the same as niggers just a little smarter and less violent. They're in cages as well as any beast should be. View niggers in safety at the zoo but never venture into the "bad" parts of town to look at them. If you do decide to go into the "bad" areas of town to look at niggers be sure to go armed. You wouldn't go unarmed in the jungle would you?

Re:they should post a list of Blacks (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#42638821)

Why is this modded down?

The issue really is privacy rights vs the 1st amendment, not the 2nd amendment vs the 1st, but very large numbers of people seem to not care what the issue really is because they have an agenda (either banning guns or preventing the banning of guns) that trumps their abilities to discuss or think rationally about what just happened.

Suppose that was a list of Muslims, or Black people, or High school dropouts, or women who have had an abortion, or Smokers, or children on ADD meds, or SSI recipients, or people who have declared bankruptcy, ...

Is this really the can of worms we will ignore being opened, all because we want it to be about the 2nd amendment rather than the 1st?

leaked huh ? (2, Insightful)

geekymachoman (1261484) | about 2 years ago | (#42638631)

Why wasn't it "leaked" .. well.. before all this pressure to ban guns ?
It's "published", not leaked. Intentionally. Probably to apply pressure on gun owners or to get them into trouble of having a gun, somehow.

What's next ? We gonna ban hammers as well ? I read there are many people killing other people with a hammer. Maybe we can ban sugar.. Hell, more people died from sugar then from guns (not counting the military or criminals that will still have guns regardless of you ban them or not).

People, shit happens, it's unavoidable. The world is full of good people and equally full of bad ones/psychotic-violent ones. Whatever you ban won't change that and mentioned ones are still gonna do their own thing.

In 20 years time you will need permission to go out of the house if the public allows these bans on everything to be carried out.

Re:leaked huh ? (1, Insightful)

ElmoGonzo (627753) | about 2 years ago | (#42638645)

Yes, shit does happen, but with a hammer an accident usually results in little more than a bruised fingernail. Check out the Twitter feed for @GunDeaths to see just how many people are killed by firearms every day. And almost every one of those is a case where the gun is being used as the manufacturer intended, not an accident.

Re:leaked huh ? (5, Insightful)

stenvar (2789879) | about 2 years ago | (#42638681)

And almost every one of those is a case where the gun is being used as the manufacturer intended, not an accident.

Yes. About 2/3 of those uses are suicides, and the rest are almost all homicides with illegal guns. Gun control has no significant effect reducing either of these numbers. There is a small remainder of homicides committed with legally owned guns and accidents, but many legal products are far more dangerous. Furthermore, there is no justification for creating intrusive government regulation that prevents me from committing suicide with a gun.

Re:leaked huh ? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#42638751)

> many legal products are far more dangerous

Citation needed.

Re:leaked huh ? (3, Informative)

echucker (570962) | about 2 years ago | (#42638803)

Can start with alcohol, if you like....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States#Statistics [wikipedia.org]

Re:leaked huh ? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#42638963)

About twice as many people die from gunshots each year than from alcohol related auto accidents.

Citation still needed.

Re:leaked huh ? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#42638807)

Publish a map of handgun owners promotes criminal use of guns, by telling thieves where they should go to get handguns to sell on the black market. Criminals want handguns -- not rifles, not shotguns, handguns.

You're A Hypocrit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638895)

Yes, shit does happen, but with a hammer an accident usually results in little more than a bruised fingernail. Check out the Twitter feed for @GunDeaths to see just how many people are killed by firearms every day. And almost every one of those is a case where the gun is being used as the manufacturer intended, not an accident.

I love this chestnut of a retort.

Please check out @cardeaths and explain to me why guns are ever mentioned with the astonishingly high fatality rate involving cars. Your fallacious (because there are many hammer deaths) comparison of guns to hammers pales when we compare gun deaths to automobile deaths. Even when we adjust the numbers to be percentages of ownership or per capita, cars are FAR more dangerous than guns.

So, will you be campaigning to ban cars? Or, are you a hypocrite that doesn't care about the children?

Why the backlash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638635)

Why the backlash? With this list bad guys know who have a gun. That makes it safer for the people on the list to walk the streets by pro gun owners logic!

Re:Why the backlash? (1)

JakeBurn (2731457) | about 2 years ago | (#42638959)

What we really need is a list of every single person's name and address who has ever posted anti-gun rhetoric online. That could be fun, right? Knowing which of their neighbors who will absolutely never have protection in their homes might be useful information. Or, the criminals could just get the gun owners list and by process of elimination know which homes are free of guns. You were absolutely right. By gun owner logic or any other logic, that list does make it safer for gun owners. Its their non-gun owning neighbors who need to worry.

Re:Why the backlash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638997)

and your idiotic logic seems to ignore the fact, that they know who own the guns, they also know who doesn't. There's such a thing called element of surprise, which is now gone.
This does basically make it safer for the gun owners, unless the robbers are in it for the guns, they can now just skip to the places without guns. That's a great advantage to them.

Gawker and John Cook (5, Informative)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 2 years ago | (#42638659)

The summary makes it sound like Gawker had a choice when it didn't publish the addresses of gun owners.

In a similar move, Gawker published the names of licensed gun owners in New York City without addresses

The only reason John Cook didn't publish them is because the NYPD didn't give them to him.. John Cook made it pretty clear that he would have published the addresses if he had them.

Because the NYPD is more interested in raping and/or eating ladies and spying on Muslims than it is in honoring public records law, the list contains only the names, and not the addresses, of the licensees.

F*ck off, gun haters (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638677)

Seriously. I'm in Canada and own no guns. You're doing it wrong.

All you idiots are doing is invading peoples' privacy, advocating vigilante justice against people who have broken no laws, and providing a database of places that criminals can go steal guns that won't be traced to them.

Proper education and required licensing country-wide is the direction you should be going in. And that involves posting your Congressmens' e-mail addresses and phone numbers. Not the constituents.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638683)

Yeah, that works fine until someone shows up with a gun at your door. Then you see that having a gun yourself is not too bad after all.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters (2, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42638825)

Yeah, that works fine until someone shows up with a gun at your door. Then you see that having a gun yourself is not too bad after all.

On the contrary. If you're unarmed, there might not be an incentive for the criminal to shoot you. If you're packing, it becomes imperative that he does, or you will shoot him.

Criminals often carry guns for the same reason gun owners claim they carry guns - self-protection. But in a country where the police is always packing, and potential victims often are, it is a valid argument.

If I were a criminal in spe and wanted to burgle a store or home at night to steal valuables, and lived in, say, England, I would be unarmed. If I lived in the US, I would carry a gun to protect my own life.

When guns are outlawed, fewer criminals will have guns.
This, I think is a net win, even if some will still have them.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638979)

I would rather not put my trust in the good intentions of a criminal who has shown up at my door.

LOL: catchpa enslave

fuck you too (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638775)

see "shall not be infringed".

Fuck your "licensing" and fuck your "government".

I really hate gun control morons like these (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 2 years ago | (#42638689)

Because they make any real, useful, gun control much less likely to happen. Their grandstanding is counter productive.

For example you try and say "Hey, we really should register firearms. After all you register your car, why not guns too? It would allow for some tracking and accountability, and in the event someone becomes a prohibited person easier allow courts to determine if they have any guns that need to be surrendered." Well the gun lobby shoots back with "No, unacceptable, if you have a registry it can be used to target gun owners." You respond "That's silly, it would be used only for lawful purposes by the proper authorities."

Then, this happens, in a place that has a gun registry. Now the gun lobby doesn't have to talk in hypotheticals, or other nations, they can point to something that happened right in America that is precisely the kind of shit they are talking about. Now more moderate gun owners, who might have been amenable, or at least accepting, of the idea hate it because they believe what the gun lobby is saying.

Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned, period, end of story, unless the second amendment is repealed. All kinds of arguments have been tried and all have failed, the supreme court has ruled that the 2nd does in fact mean that gun ownership is a protected, individual, right.

As such trying stupid shit to do things that are bans but not in name, or to harass or make things difficult for gun owners are counter productive. All they do is polarize things, convince gun owners that any and all controls are bad because they'll be abused.

Stunts like this are nothing but harmful.

fuck registration (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638721)

People are arming up primary against the "progressive" filth in this nation.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (2)

watice (1347709) | about 2 years ago | (#42638779)

I really don't see how posting this kind of information is harassing, or making things difficult for gun owners. I'm actually pretty pro-gun, AND reside/work in NYC but I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Are we going to seal the records of crime stats because it might lower property value? What about code violations? Should we seal every single damaged sidewalk complaint too? The argument that this somehow puts gun owners in danger or subjects them to unfair scrutiny is absolutely ridiculous. These people are armed, they have one additional means of protection (if not more, since the only limit as far as I know in NYC is to have a safe after 7 guns). Speculation about what kind of criminals these lists/maps/dbs can attract is just foolish. By that logic, all store locators on websites could potentially attract thieves because they know where the goods are.

I'm not sure how I feel about it or where I stand on it yet, but the recently passed gun control laws in NYS allow permit holders to limit their information from public release: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/19/ny-gun-control-law-limits-public-info/1847485/ [usatoday.com]

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (4, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 2 years ago | (#42638837)

surely this a public service for burglars - now they know which homes *not* to target because they stand a chance of getting shot by the homeowner when they go to in take his valuables.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (2)

jezwel (2451108) | about 2 years ago | (#42638909)

unless they want to steal guns...which has apparently already happened to people on the list

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638923)

The three things burglars are looking for are cash, jewelry, and pistols. Everything else is too large/heavy and/or too difficult to turn into cash. If your home is broken into then that pistol you keep by the bedside is guaranteed to be gone. Burglars also take great pains to ensure a home is not occupied by anyone else when they go in. Therefore, a list of pistol owners is in fact a list of homes guaranteed to have something good inside.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#42638977)

Or it's a list of homes to burgle to get their hands on a gun they otherwise wouldn't be able to get due to background checks. The "Yes, but they're at risk of being shot!" argument only works if you assume that every gun owner stays at home all day, every day, and leaves no evidence of their absence behind if they do leave for any reason.

I still don't see the point of the disclosure beyond straightforward harassment of gun owners. And all this does is encourage gun owners to be scared of registration and permit requirements, no matter how legitimate. Given some kind of permitting system ought to be part of any discussion of sane gun control, it's hard to see how this kind of idiocy helps the public debate.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (1)

peragrin (659227) | about 2 years ago | (#42638893)

What if Samsung published the addresses of every home that had a 55" TV? You were supposed to register that too.

Store locators are there because you go to them to buy stuff. if I go to your house can I go through your belongs and take what I want if i leave some cash on the counter?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638953)

I really don't see how posting this kind of information is harassing, or making things difficult for gun owners. ...

Really?

OK, then. Let's post a list of all women who have abortions. With addresses.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638791)

Which is really the point, gun registries are abused and this is just one example. That's why so many gun owners oppose them. They have also been used for mass confiscation, which is another reason they are opposed.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (4, Insightful)

cirby (2599) | about 2 years ago | (#42638793)

"That's silly, it would be used only for lawful purposes by the proper authorities."

Two of the homes listed in the first publication of gun owners' names have had their homes burglarized - and one of them only had their gun safe stolen.

Meanwhile, there have been calls by leglislators to confiscate guns - by forcing registration and/or using current registration lists.

Neither of those are "straw men." Indeed, they were mostly just predictions based on knowing how people think and act.

"Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned," ...then why are some people calling for gun bans? And trying to pass laws that effectively ban guns? And why are there many places in the US with fairly comprehensive gun bans, like Chicago?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638905)

Or you know, the fact that this happened vindicates what the "gun lobby" (because you have to be a lobbyist to give a shit about your privacy?) has been saying.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (2)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#42638915)

Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned, period, end of story, unless the second amendment is repealed. All kinds of arguments have been tried and all have failed, the supreme court has ruled that the 2nd does in fact mean that gun ownership is a protected, individual, right.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that they will not fight to repeal the 2nd Amendment. That would be too difficult a battle. No, instead they simply re-define what rights an "individual" has, and look to disarm you. Today that happens to be anyone convicted of a felony, no matter how victimless that crime may have been, or unrelated to protecting ones self or family. Every convicted felon has lost that right to defend themselves.

Tomorrow that may be re-defined to include anyone who commits even the slightest infraction in our ever-tightening big brother watchdog society. Ran a red light? Oh, now you're deemed "unsafe" and lost your ability to apply for your state and federal gun permits. They'll just confiscate those until you can become eligible again, in 3 years...you know, the new mandatory "cooling off" period.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638919)

"Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned, period, end of story, unless the second amendment is repealed. All kinds of arguments have been tried and all have failed, the supreme court has ruled that the 2nd does in fact mean that gun ownership is a protected, individual, right."

I don't want guns banned. But it shouldn't take repeal of constitutional amendments to get some reasonable controls. Guns are useful tools. Even in countries with very strict regulations people still own and use guns. What part of "reasonable regulations" != "repeal 2nd amendment" are gun owners failing to comprehend?

I've used guns. I don't happen to own one myself, but I got formally trained in how to use them safely and have used them. I wouldn't want them to go away. That doesn't prevent me from wanting the regulations for use and ownership to be strict. "Harass" gun owners? Please. They're a bunch of whiners that *say* they want to use these dangerous and useful tools responsibly, but the moment anyone wants to attach more legal responsibility to them, "OMG, the government is trying to take away ALL our guns/repeal the second amendment!" That's nonsense.

This kind of privacy breach does not inspire confidence, but that's not a good reason for abandoning registration of firearms, any more than it would be if somebody leaked the entire DMV car ownership database. Hold the government to account for the slip-up, but we wouldn't ban cars or stop registering them in that circumstance either.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | about 2 years ago | (#42638989)

Please tell me one consumer good more highly regulated than firearms.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | about 2 years ago | (#42638961)

Now more moderate gun owners, who might have been amenable, or at least accepting, of the idea hate it because they believe what the gun lobby is saying.

Actually, it simply proves the gun lobby correct. Obviously, we need to incorporate mental health records into state checks and do a background check on everyone who wants to buy any firearm, but "registering" them is a different animal and IS fraught with problems that the 2nd Amendment was created for. The system needs work, but registering isn't the solution. The Sandy Hook shooting wouldn't have been prevented, for example, because the guns were stolen, not legally purchased.

A little homework shows that most crimes are by illegally purchased (or stolen) firearms anyway. Making it harder for normal people, like me (who had an FFL for years but isn't really into guns) only drives the black market more. Just like how prohibition made booze easier to get, and how pot prohibition makes pot easy to get. It also makes it profitable. Forget registering, and put the money where it would actually make a difference, the ILLEGAL trade of firearms.

As a committed Progressive Obamunist... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638701)

I think that all guns should be banned unless you are an oligarch, a banker, a celebrity, or a member of the political class. I realize that many of those categories overlap but bear with me. The "common man" needs to be under total control that way we can establish our global government without any resistance. We've seen terrible violence in places like Iraq and Afghanistan when we removed people there who wouldn't go along with the plans for a global government. Now we need to get rid of the other regimes who won't play ball like Syria and Iran but where we really need to get the ball rolling is here in America. We need the proles to turn in their weapons because we don't like resistance. I think that even if the government has to kill more American school children in order to get a solid gun ban in place then that's the way it has to be. You have to at times break a few eggs in order to form the kind of world order that I think we'd all like to see as progressives.

FORWARD!

A gun for me, but not for thee. (1)

atgaaa (1869296) | about 2 years ago | (#42638759)

New York City has some of the strictest gun laws in in the USA, exactly how does one get a permit/license?
How many people on that list are publicly on record as supporting "gun control"?

I do not want to see the addresses published, it is a very different thing to go to a government office, present
identification, and ask for a copy of the list, then to be able to anonymously access the information.

Re:A gun for me, but not for thee. (1)

watice (1347709) | about 2 years ago | (#42638869)

It's easy. You just need to provide character reference letters (you're told before the interview), and list every single non-civil court encounter from traffic to summons to arrest, as well as list every single narcotic you've ever taken. Oh you forgot you got Vicodin at the hospital that one time you broke your hand? Well you've just lied on a government form. Denied. You can find more info here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/HandGunLicenseApplicationFormsComplete.pdf [nyc.gov]

It was a privacy matter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638777)

The people who were listed were the ones following the law - it didn't tell you who had guns, just who had permits.
This information was gathered using freedom of information requests, compiled, and then publicly displayed by a single entity to promote their agenda.
This wasn't journalism, but activism.

To those who see no harm in this, how about if ALL public records were equally displayed - your neighborhood map would show that the person on the corner had a DUI, the guy down the street beats his wife, the nice old lady across the street was arrested at the grocery store for shoplifting, the young couple next door bounced checks...

Let's publish a list of the newspaper employees (1)

acoustix (123925) | about 2 years ago | (#42638789)

After all, it is legal right? I'm sure nothing bad would happen. :/

Re:Let's publish a list of the newspaper employees (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638817)

Is this an attempt at a veiled threat?

Targets for Theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638805)

Not only does this infringe on privacy, it makes legitimate gun owners targets for theft. Criminals know registered gun owners work for a living, now they have addresses to go steal those firearms when people are at work. Its disgraceful that political grand standing would subject people to such scrutiny. These are legal gun owners, who have committed no crimes. Drunk drivers are felons and still kill more then 1200 children in this country every year; where is the dui registry? We dont create one because its as wrong as a gun registry.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

How about coins? (4, Insightful)

AndyKron (937105) | about 2 years ago | (#42638815)

Hell, why not publish data on who has large coin collections at home while we're at it. This is yet another example why people shouldn't register their weapons with the government.

Re:How about coins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42638897)

Don't give them any ideas.

This jackass in Illinois is already up to it...

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=3341&GAID=11&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=64562&SessionID=84

So now a bunch of people are going to get shot... (1)

joshamania (32599) | about 2 years ago | (#42638903)

...when thieves break into their houses looking for guns.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?