Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun owners

[Auburn85 434]

http://www.cnn.com/2...-map/index.html

(CNN) -- An interactive map showing the names and addresses of all handgun permit-holders in New York's Westchester and Rockland counties has drawn a response from mostly disgruntled readers since it was posted Saturday on a newspaper's website.

The interactive map published by the Journal News, prompting more than 1,300 comments as of Tuesday, allows readers to zoom in on red dots that indicate which residents are licensed to own pistols or revolvers.

"So should we start wearing yellow Stars of David so the general public can be aware of who we are??" wrote one commenter.

Some of those responding threatened to cancel their subscriptions or boycott the publication completely.

"I hope you lose readers now," wrote one.

The map came about in the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, according to a statement from The Journal News.

"In the past week, conversation on our opinion pages and on our website, LoHud.com, has been keenly focused on gun control," the newspaper's editor and vice president, CynDee Royle, said in the statement.

The names and addresses of the two counties' permit-holding residents were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The website notes that the map does not indicate whether the residents own handguns, only that they are legally able to, and that the data do not pertain to rifles or shotguns -- which can be bought without a permit.

Still, hundreds of residents were shocked to see their information posted without their being notified. Some said the map will prompt burglaries because thieves are now aware of where weapons are likely located.

"Now everyone knows where the legal guns are kept, a valuable piece of information for criminals," a commenter wrote. "Why don't you do something helpful, like trying to find out where the illegal guns are kept?"

The Journal News argued that residents have a right to access information regarding weapon holders in Westchester and Rockland communities.

"Our readers are understandably interested to know about guns in their neighborhoods," Royle said in her statement.

[jj3jordan 2,125]

I guess if you're name is not on that list, you are the next target of criminals. Maybe that's who is complaining, the now known unarmed future victims.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Well there is the group who is known to be unarmed who could be targeted, and the group who are now presumed armed and likely to be shot on sight instead of perhaps set aside during a robbery. Either way it's silly.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Get ready. This is just the start of the liberal attempt to make legal gun owners public enemy number 1.

Yet again, however, a self important liberal move doesn't consider obvious unintended consequences. They just made a bunch of their unarmed best friends clear targets for criminals. They also made it much easier for criminals to know how to procure more weapons illegaly.

Good job guys. Your self righteous move probably cost someone their life. But hey, at least you get to feel good about holding some position of moral superiority because you don't believe in the 2nd amendment.

The 1st amendment is super important and not subject to scrutiny of relevance in a modern day. However, the 2nd amendment must be stricken and subjected to all sorts of considerations for today's world. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Headline next week: Handgun Permit Applications Spike 200%. Officials Perplexed.

[alexava 6,974]

Im one of the most outspoken on this site for more gun control. I hope its clear that im am only in favor of banning the the most leathal high capacity weapons and having more accountability for keeping guns away from nut jobs. Knowing who has a gun will not help prevent any crime or make anyone feel any safer. This is the liberal extremism that i hoped we wouldnt see. Although i doubt it should be a huge deal. Most gun owners are so proud they put signs in there yard and stupid bumper stickers on their trucks anyway. I bet these are the ones crowing about it too.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Im one of the most outspoken on this site for more gun control. I hope its clear that im am only in favor of banning the the most leathal high capacity weapons and having more accountability for keeping guns away from nut jobs. Knowing who has a gun will not help prevent any crime or make anyone feel any safer. This is the liberal extremism that i hoped we wouldnt see. Although i doubt it should be a huge deal. Most gun owners are so proud they put signs in there yard and stupid bumper stickers on their trucks anyway. I bet these are the ones crowing about it too.

That's what's so stupid. I'd be concerned if my name was posted on an easily accessible public database crossreferenced with a map. I'd be more concerned if the idiot newspaper outed me as a home that does not have guns on the premises. You've just provided criminals with a list of homes least likely to have armed occupants. Way to go.

[homersapien 11,812]

Get ready. This is just the start of the liberal attempt to make legal gun owners public enemy number 1.

Hmmm, guess I'm not really a liberal afterall.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

This guy gets it:

Last week, in the wake of the Newtown massacre, the Journal News in New York’s lower Hudson Valley published a map listing the names and locations of all the licensed handgun owners in the area. The rationale seems to be in this passage from the story:

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.

“I would love to know if someone next to me had guns. It makes me safer to know so I can deal with that,” said Thompson, whose group counsels youths against gun violence. “I might not choose to live there.”

The Atlantic’s reporter surveys the angry social-media reactions of area gun owners, and finds, unsurprisingly, that some of them are hysterical, paranoid, and enraged. I have to say that while the examples The Atlantic cites are crackpotty, I find myself more on their side than on the newspaper’s.

For one thing, I don’t for a second believe the newspaper’s idea was to inform its readers for the sake of greater safety. Given the timing and the public mood, it seems far more likely to me that its editors wanted to shame licensed handgun owners. Therefore, I think this project is a modified form of concern-trolling.

For another, I generally hate activists and journalists publicizing names and addresses of private citizens, especially amid an emotionally charged controversy. A few years back, some same-sex marriage activists in California created maps to the homes of Prop 8 supporters, using publicly available information. To underscore, they did not get this information illegally. As I recall, the Prop 8 backers had either donated money to the Prop 8 campaign, or signed a petition, or both. The point of the activism was to socially shame the anti-SSM people, and to make them feel threatened. If their friends shunned them, or protesters showed up in their driveways, or they went to bed at night afraid that someone might break in or do them harm … well, good, they deserved it (reasoned activists).

A big problem with this sort of thing is that it encourages vigilantism. Let’s say that there had been a gay-rights initiative in, I dunno, Alabama, and some group opposed to gay rights got its hands on a list of donors to GLAAD, or the Human Rights Campaign, or some other pro-gay group. What if they created a website listing maps to those donors’ homes? And what if some vigilantes decided to make life miserable for the people — gay or straight — who lived there?

Is that really the kind of country we want to live in? Similarly, I don’t believe these New York gun owners cited by the Journal News have a legal right to privacy, but I have to wonder what real good is done by publicizing their names and addresses in this way, especially in a time when the public is beside itself with grief over Newtown (which, for the Journal News, was a local story). Just because something is legal — as is publicizing these names and addresses, taken from publicly available sources — does not mean it’s a good idea.

I have always hated the tactic adopted by anti-abortion protesters, of showing up outside the homes of abortion doctors and staging demonstrations. I think the work abortion doctors do is repulsive and vile. But maintaining respect for the privacy of everyone, even those we consider wicked or some sort of threat to the common good, is necessary for the maintenance of civilized life. I don’t believe this is an absolute principle. There are cases when it’s more important to make this information public, as when a child sex offender moves into one’s neighborhood. But the presumption, in my view, must strongly rest with respecting the privacy of private citizens.

http://www.theameric...outs-gun-owners

The vigilantism thing is key. What happens when some anti-gun asshat decides to organize a protest in front of one of these people's houses? What happens when a shouting match ensues or it escalates into fisticuffs? Or what if some loose screw from the protestors defaces their property or throw a rock through a window? If the homeowner feels threatened and fire his gun at someone does the story become about a gun-nut shooting an unarmed person or that idiotic 'news' stories like this provided the kindling for an almost-guaranteed explosive scenario?

[alexava 6,974]

this newspaper should be boycotted. not just for the privacy breech(even though its appearantly public info), but for instigating and stirring shat. new york might be different but i pretty much assume all households are packing heat in alabama. i dont know why they did it, but as mentioned earlier it just magnifies residents that are not armed and makes them robbery targets.

[cptau 169]

this newspaper should be boycotted. not just for the privacy breech(even though its appearantly public info), but for instigating and stirring shat. new york might be different but i pretty much assume all households are packing heat in alabama. i dont know why they did it, but as mentioned earlier it just magnifies residents that are not armed and makes them robbery targets.

A blogger in new york published the names and home addresses of all the newpaper's reporter and editor employees on a map. Apparently New York state law requires that those names and addresses be public. Payback starts.

http://www.newrochel...ur-neighborhood

http://christopherfo...al-news-editor/