Does your neighbor pack heat? How common are firearms in your community? Especially after massacres like last month’s Newtown shootings, those are legitimate questions — ones that a suburban newspaper in New York State tried to answer with an online map of pistol permit-holders in two counties that has provoked a national outcry. Gun owners have accused the Journal News of White Plains of invading their privacy and tarring law-abiding gun owners with a kind of virtual scarlet letter. In the process, some gun advocates fear, the paper has created a roadmap for thieves seeking to steal weapons. The backlash has become so intense the newspaper recently posted armed guards at its office.
The most reasonable critique of the newspaper is that its map doesn’t present a complete picture of the extent of gun ownership in Westchester and Rockland counties. After all, a permit holder might own multiple pistols, or none at all. The map doesn’t include rifles or shotguns, which don’t require permits in New York, and doesn’t account for illegally held weapons.
Comments
What's great about this issue is that it really brings out the unsavory dirty laundry of this country's gun culture. On the one hand the NRA-beholden gun lovers scream Second Amendment rights for justifying their owning machine guns, on the other hand they deny a newspaper its First Amendment rights to open access to information and free speech. This is the typical stance of these, usually Republican, hypocrites: jump up and down when constituional rights weigh in their favor, but deny them when things get uncomfortable. If gun-owning were truly a democratic and noble right, then letting your community know if you own a gun should be no problem. The behavior of gun-owners demonstrates well what gun-owning is all about, that all this represents not American democracy, but rather the dark shadows of neo-facism.
We own machine guns? Strange, I do not have one. I did however read the federal regs on what it takes to possess one. WOW! I know a LOT of gun owners, not one of them has a machine gun (I am 63, so when I say a LOT, I mean a LOT).
If one is going to excersice 1A rights, one needs to be a little careful. The old yelling Fire in a theater is out. Exposing someone to needless danger is definitely out. Victims of violence in hiding were exposed, retired law enforcement were exposed, judges exposed. It was downright reckless.
Just FYI, in most of the country, gun owners have no problem letting their neighbors know they own guns. Fact is, their neighbors own them too. However, here in weird New England, with its weird liberals, gun owners have been taught not to get all of you liberals into a flap by mentioning evil guns. In large parts of the country, YOU would be the oddball and the subject of ridicule. In case you have not noticed, gun sales have been increasing dramatically.
Oh, one more thing! My neighbors know that I own guns, and that I go shooting. In fact, I have corrupted several of them by taking them with me. Ohhh noooo, the EVIL is spreading.
But, should the "community" at large be made aware that I have guns stored in my home? "Community" is such a nice word, until you realize it also includes people like Adam Lanza, rapists, thieves, killers, drug addicts, pedophiles, etc. So, no, I do not think the "Community" has any right to know whether I have guns in my home.
The gun registry is public information. End of story.
Not in Massachusetts it isn't. End of story.
It depends on where. In New York it is; in Massachusetts it is not. The Journal New did not publish a map of Massachusetts gun owners, so, quite frankly, it is no one's business outside of New York.
Really just points out the DEGENERACY of the liberals.
Folks who follow the law are subject to harrassment and intimidation (yes, moonies, that's exactly why the paper did this).
But the lefties fight tooth and nail to make sure that decent people (ie not liberals/democrats) cant know if there is a child rapist in your neighborhood, or if a convicted criminal is applying to man your cash register.
Law-abiding citizens have no rights ....but rapists, murders, illegals.... they have rights.... logic that only makes sense to the syphilitic brain of a liberal....
Geez, Francine, take a valium or three.
The writer obviously advocates providing a roadmap for a lunatic who does not own a firearm and have the means to legally obtain one, be able to steal one. To paraphrase the author "Especially after massacres like last month's Newtown shootings, that is a legitimate concern."
The writer also conveniently ignores some other issues with posting the names of gun owners on line.
Retired police officer who more than likely has people who would like to "get even" with him/her. They have to register their handguns just like anyone else.
Someone who was a victim of domestic violence and is in "hiding", but the paper now revealed her whereabouts. They own a handgun for very obvious reasons and must register it.
One of TV's popular judges was outed on that website. Putting her at risk, for no reason.
Then there are some other problems. Those registries are not completely up to date. People move out of state and have no legal obligation to inform the state. They may just move to another town and not update. Ooops. Investigation revealed that database listed deceased persons.
The writer stated that individual parents may want to know who owns guns in their neighborhood. Fine, let them go make the request if it is so important to them, but the argument that they "lack the time" implies that it must not be all that important afterall.
Of course, the writer makes no sense, because after all the ballyhoo about everyone having the right to know who has guns in their neighborhood, the writer informs us that the wonderful database doesn't tell anyone who owns rifles and shotguns. What makes it even worse, is that the article was prefaced with the now ubiquitous "Sandy Hook" reference, handguns were not used to murder those children. So exactly why was the reference made in the first place? Theatrics.
It is interesting how the writer so causually dismisses the idea that thieves may be led to gunowners doors with "That fear seems overblown". Really, by whom? The writer? Is that why the writer does not have his/her name on this article?
Oh my, when someone feels that THEIR perceived 1st ammendment rights might be getting a bit trampled on, don't they get all in a huff!
All in all, what a lousy article, just one more example of someone trying to tear down the Bill of Rights by splashing around in the blood of children.
Well so much for respecting privacy. Its facinating what lengths the Globe and similar liberals will go to defend the indefensible. Yes, one can, apparently, get a list of gun owners. Does that fact justify identifing them by address so publically? These are people who have acted LAWFULLY and may have any number of perfectly justifiable reasons for owning a weapon. Why even consider causing such people ANY difficulty because they chose to exercise a RIGHT? Would the Globe print a list of women who got abortions simply because a list might be publically available? The fact is the Globe, like all liberals, are happy to ignore values they normally embrace (if not worship) like privacy when they find abandoning it a useful tactic against those who hold different political views. The Globe should be embarrassed by an editorial that supports the completely useless invasion of privacy of lawful citizens by anyone much less another paper. Instead, the Globe offers a witless excuse for a unjustifiable, illiberal, blatent attempt to embarass or intimidate private, law abiding, citizens. You should be ashamed of yourselves as "journalists", as human beings and even as professed "liberals" who supposedly respect and honor the primacy of personal privacy.
They published public information. Chill.
Well if you are for the 2nd amendment why would you not be for the first amendment. Lock up those guns people the criminals are coming for you..