Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Privacy Government United States Your Rights Online

New York Paper Uses Public Records To Publish Gun-Owner Map 1232

New submitter Isaac-1 writes "First it was the sex offenders being mapped using public records, now it seems to be gun owners — I wonder who will be next? It seems a newspaper in New York has published an interactive map with the names and addresses of people with [handguns]." It's happened before: In 2007, Virginia's Roanoke Times raised the ire of many gun owners by publishing a database of Virginia's gun permit holders that it assembled based on public records inquiries. (The paper later withdrew that database.) Similarly, WRAL-TV in North Carolina published a database earlier this year with searchable map of (partially redacted) information about permit holders in that state, and Philadelphia made the news for a similar disclosure — complete with interactive map and addresses — of hundreds of gun permit applicants and holders.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York Paper Uses Public Records To Publish Gun-Owner Map

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:19AM (#42387223)
    Yet such resistance to open up data on it. These are legal guns and these maps allow prospective homeowners to know which neighborhoods are "safer" (one way or the other). Leave it up.
  • So... Question, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by skovnymfe ( 1671822 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:21AM (#42387231)
    All these people that shoot up eachother, are their guns legal or are they illegal?
  • by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:31AM (#42387313)
    ..and then which places to invade after they have a firearm.
  • by Tim Ward ( 514198 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:43AM (#42387381) Homepage

    ... else's business?

    Maybe I'm trying to work out where I'm going to live, and want to avoid neighbourhoods that are so dangerous that their residents think they need guns.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:45AM (#42387399)

    I'd suggest you temper your map with some localized information from these charts You'll see that a simple map of "injury from a firearm" almost always includes suicides.

    The concerning part is the illogical application of constitutional amendments here. If I published a list of all the people who commented on political forums in 2012 with their home address would that be okay?

  • by flayzernax ( 1060680 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:54AM (#42387487)

    Because its an abuse of the freedoms you have to use to protest something that everyone deserves, its just not right to use constitutional amendments to attack other constitutional amendments, its amounts to mass insanity. It shows how bad our culture has been damaged by the stupid bullshit all the conspiracy nuts are always crying about.

  • by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:56AM (#42387517) Homepage Journal

    I think the comparison to the sex offenders map is apt. This map serves as a perfect counterbalance to that registered sex offenders map.

    You see, there's a fine line between self defense and vigilantism. Whenever somebody gets raped or a child goes missing, there's a heightened risk of violence against people on the sex offenders list because everybody assumes they did it. Since random gun owners now know where former sex offenders live, it's only fair that the knowledge be mutual. :-)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:58AM (#42387527)

    They tell you nothing. For one, "gun deaths" have nothing to do with the actual number of homicides committed using firearms. The phrase "gun deaths" is used by those pushing an agenda because they get to pump up their numbers with suicides (which would occur with or without guns). Suicides account for more than two-thirds of the "gun deaths" in the US, and our suicide rate doesn't even come close to matching many other countries (including ones such as South Korea and Japan where gun ownership is severely restricted).

    As far as murder rate, the US is relatively far down the list with approximately 4.2 per 100,000. Compare this to ~91 per 100,000 for Honduras.

    In other words, when you look at this from a neutral angle rather than trying to push one side or another things don't seem as dire as they appear.

  • Brilliant (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @12:01PM (#42387561)

    Being aware of the presence of a gun and whether it is in a safe mode is essential when children are involved.

    So... I have just looked at the map, and discovered that my little nephews live next to gun owners on three sides. Their parents now know this, and can ensure that their neighbors properly "safe" their weapons if they are at their house.

    IMHO, this was a very important community service.

  • Re:So... Question, (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Barsteward ( 969998 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @12:08PM (#42387641)
    yep, owned by people who thought having a gun made them a "big" person
  • by cmdr_tofu ( 826352 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @01:07PM (#42388225) Homepage

    A lot of so called "gun nuts" are not really a threat to anyone, but IMHO it is really HARD to keep a gun physically secure (unless you have a private security firm to guard your weapons) I know when I get car insurance they ask questions like "does anyone else drive your car". Imagine if gun owners needed to buy gun liability insurance and key questions were asked like "do you have any one with previous or current psychological or criminal issues in your home". I'm not saying that insurance is the right answer, but just as a thought it probably would get a more formal risk assesment done.

  • by pla ( 258480 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @02:12PM (#42388815) Journal
    I wonder how appealing gun ownership would be if the owners had to turn out a compulsory drill every month.

    Actually, Hamilton (in Federalist #29) only suggested an annual inspection - "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year"

    You'll do it in the rain, snow, and sleet, -20; you'll do it in the hot sun, 100+; you'll do it one Saturday

    Aside from the pure BS nuisance factor of weather, an indoor range would make it safer and easier (for the testers) to run people through a battery of drills to demonstrate their proficiency. Though make no mistake, I have friends who would pay to spend a weekend crawling through the cold mud on a military obstacle course / rifle range (if doing so didn't require that whole "joining the military" thing). ;)

    Now, in spirit, I have absolutely nothing against something akin to Hamilton's original suggestion. The slope gets pretty damned slippery, however, when someone in power needs to decide what counts as passing. Banning civilian firearms then requires nothing more than setting the bar absurdly high - "Oh, gee, sorry, you went outside the allowed 4" spread at 100 yards, better luck next year!"
  • by BetterSense ( 1398915 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @02:45PM (#42389069)
    "Regulated" is a governmental euphemism that came to mean what it does because instead of saying "We are going to pass laws to control X", the government consistently comes up with more palatable (like "we are going to regulate(old meaning) X") to hide the true nature. Over time, now "regulated" actually means "controlled by law". People eventually wise up to the new meaning.

    There should be a special category for language changes caused by government euphemism. I predict the following future usages:

    Current word:True political meaning, eventually becoming common meaning after people wise up
    Fair:Socially Engineered
    Rich:Not dependent on government

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken