8 ms·

NY newspaper runs interactive map with names, addresses of gun permit holders

33 points by ronnier 14y ago

randomchars 14y ago
The gun scare is getting ridiculous. Things like this make people think that anyone who owns a gun might just walk into a crowded place and start shooting.
- mkarazin 14y ago
  And makes it easier for criminals to avoid houses with guns, thus putting the non gun population at risk.
  - coryl 14y ago
    Is there evidence or any cases of criminals doing informational background searches on their targets?
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      Burglars routinely monitor the obituaries for dates of funerals to break into houses while the funeral is taking place. For instance: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120330/NEWS01/703309874 http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120330/NEWS01/703309874 But there are many more examples of that. For criminals information is a competitive edge, just like for everybody else. The safe bet is that they exploit that edge to the maximum of their abilities to increase their rewards.
      - droithomme 14y ago
        This is definitely a huge problem in many areas. I've known around a dozen people whose houses were robbed while they were at a funeral. Last funeral I went to, recently, the funeral director told the family members they needed to arrange for people to housesit during the services. They did and two of them were then faced with burglars trying to break in. There are organized crime gangs that read obituaries and make it their business to take your stuff. If you are flying out of state to bury your spouse or parent, the risk is greater. In two cases I know of, a moving truck arrived as soon as they left for the airport and took absolutely everything.
    - csense 14y ago
      If a criminal can gather information about his target easily, simply and anonymously, it would be stupid for him (or her) not to do so. AFAIK police departments everywhere have been advising people for at least five decades to be sure someone picks up your mail and newspapers if you're planning to be away, because criminals will realize that nobody lives in or checks up on a house if the mailbox is overflowing. Haven't you ever seen the scene in the original "Home Alone" where the Wet Bandits are casing the neighborhood before they hit the houses?
    - nekojima 14y ago
      A number of professional footballers in the UK had their houses broken into during matches they were playing in, in the last two or three years. In some cases repeatedly, after new items were purchased to replace those stolen, the house was broken into again, during another match. I'd guess home matches are best, because their wife/gf/partner will be more likely to go to the stadium, rather than for an away match, when their wife may not travel.
  - Luff 14y ago
    A Swedish e-bay type of service recently got in trouble with the press for allowing private sellers of guns to post their phone numbers in the ads. The reasoning behind this was that criminals could use the phone number to figure out where the sellers lived, and go steal their guns. Funny how these things differ between places.
- csense 14y ago
  > make people think that anyone who owns a gun might just walk into a crowded place and start shooting. That's exactly how a particular side of the debate wants to frame the issue. It's a notion that "ordinary" people aren't capable of responsibly making life-or-death decisions. That guns have to be a monopoly of "extraordinary" people -- police and miliatry -- who are working for the state. (As if they aren't themselves "ordinary" people!)
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    >That's exactly how a particular side of the debate wants to frame the issue. And these strawman arguments being tossed around is exactly why we can't have a productive discussion regarding guns in this country. When you insist on turning the other side into a ridiculous caricature, why do you expect to be taken seriously?
    - csense 14y ago
      I don't know who you're accusing of "turning the other side into a ridiculous caricature," me or the paper. But I'll respond as if the answer to this question is "me." Let's imagine they published a list of all the African-Americans in their area instead. What's your gut reaction? It could be claimed to be just a matter-of-fact reporting of data obtained in a routine government census. But I have a feeling that race, in this country, is such a divisive issue that a lot of readers -- of all positions on the issue of race, and both African-Americans and non-African-Americans -- would read into it an implication of Us versus Them, that we should be Concerned about the distribution of African-Americans. Many readers would see an implication that this piece is supposed to be an eye-opener, deemed worthy of newspaper publication on the angle of "You may think your neighborhood doesn't have any African-Americans, but actually they're everywhere." Now re-read the previous two paragraphs, but replace the word "race" with "gun control," and "African-Americans" with "gun owners." I will admit that I'm deliberately making the argument as bald as possible, in a way that makes it as easy as possible to see the fallacy. When you read the way I explain it, you may say "No one believes that!" And I would agree that almost no one consciously believes that. But a lot of human thinking is unconscious, not based on reasons, facts, and observations. Sometimes this unconscious reasoning is based on tribal psychology, Us versus Them, and that's what this article is speaking to. Since the argument's not laid out in plain terms, it may escape the reader's conscious thought process. But if it doesn't escape the unconscious thought process -- if it makes you feel "With all the news about gun violence lately, and all those gun owners around, I don't feel safe...someone should really do something about all those gun owners..." it can sway a person's position without capturing their full attention or being subjected to the scrutiny of the rational mind. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Ac...
dfc 14y ago
Title should be: "NY newspaper runs interactive map with names, addresses of handgun permit holders" You do not need to read beyond the first ten words to realize this: "The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver" In order to have a rational debate on improving gun control we need to use words correctly...
- 3825 14y ago
  Are assault rifles licensed separately?
  - icegreentea 14y ago
    True assault rifles are some of the most difficult things to get your hands on. All automatic (which include burst fire) weapons count as machine guns under the National Firearms Act, and are highly regulated. No machinegun made and registered after 1986 can be legally transferred between civilians. Amongst other difficulties and regulation, that restriction means automatic weapons typically sell for enormous amounts. The term you're looking for is 'assault weapon' which is a generally poorly defined term. Under the terms of the previous federal assault weapon ban, an assault weapon (rifle) is any weapon that has in addition to detachable magazines (a "clip" in popular culture), has at least two of the following features: a folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, and/or muzzle mounted grenade launcher, as well as AR-15s, TEC-9s, Uzis, and AK-47s - those models being specifically named and banned. Since we are looking at New York specifically, then the following apply. Rifles and shotguns ("long guns") do not require a state permit for purchase, nor registration, nor a license. Handguns require all three. There are additional restrictions on handguns that will typically limit their licensees to using and carrying them for sport. New York has an assault weapon ban in place, effectively continuing the expired Federal ban.
    - 3825 14y ago
      Thank you. Does the NRA not consider the (effective) ban on machine guns a violation of the second amendment?
bmmayer1 14y ago
In theory there should be nothing wrong with putting already-publicly available data online in a format digestible by the general public. The issue is that we put permit holders on a public list in the first place. These are law abiding citizens who have registered their guns legally. Making the information public, especially in stunts like this, does nothing but dissuade people from registering their firearms to avoid being targeted like criminals by overzealous neighbors and overeager journalists.
- somedayme 14y ago
  But at least they have guns to defend themselves!
  - DamnYuppie 14y ago
    As was mentioned above this is a silly comment. Most burglaries in the US occur when no one is home. Which is done for a reason as 50% of the people in this country have fire arms. Where as in countries such as UK with strict gun laws almost 1/2 of the burglaries are committed when someone is home.
- subsystem 14y ago
  "Law abiding citizens" follow the law even if it doesn't please them.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    "Law abiding citizens" follow the law, tautologically. But if you want more citizens to be law abiding, one of the best ways is to make the laws less objectionable and easier to abide.
- genwin 14y ago
  It might instead persuade people to register their firearms, if criminals use the data to avoid these houses.
- edj 14y ago
diego_moita 14y ago
This is irrelevant. The really dangerous ones are the video-game players.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  I don't know why you got downvoted, as I found your sarcasm humorous. :)
jkubicek 14y ago
This is absolutely terrible. This is a perfect example of the persecution gun owners fear when they're asked to register their weapons. We need more gun registration and exposing data like this does nothing but hinder that goal.
- genwin 14y ago
  Not if criminals use the data to avoid these houses. Then people might register in greater numbers. They might buy a gun just to get on the public list.
  - gojomo 14y ago
    This may be an effect, but while some criminals want to avoid a confrontation with a gun-wielding resident... others want to steal guns. By helping criminals self-sort to the right targets for the risks they prefer, the net effect on crime/safety could be negative, by shifting break-ins to where they are most likely to succeed.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      Is gun theft ever really that much of a specific goal? Seems guns are easy enough to get on the street that breaking into a house just to steal guns has a much higher risk than is normally necessary. EDIT: Well that didn't take long to acquire a silent Reddit-style "independent-thought downvote."
      - Anechoic 14y ago
        You'd be suprised: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/thieves_break_into_springfield.html http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/thieves_break...
        rhizome 14y ago
        That's one instance with a very large (no?) safe. I was asking about the prevalence of that kind of crime, not whether it had ever happened before in the history of weapons, or theft itself.
GunsKillPeople 14y ago
Nice. Stupid gun owners. Lets post the names of these violent people.
GunsKillPeople 14y ago
Nice. Stupid gun owners. Lets post the names of these violent people.
droithomme 14y ago
This will be really helpful for those that want to steal and resell guns on the black market. Hopefully the newspaper will follow up with a list of the addresses of those with costly jewelry, and narcotic pain medication prescriptions, along with schedules of the times they are at work. And yes, perfect example of the dangers of registration.
- TomGullen 14y ago
  But at least they will be better able to defend themselves as their guns are robbed from them
  - DamnYuppie 14y ago
    This is petty comment. Most home intrusions in the US occur when no one is home. If you were planning on robbing a home that is known to have guns would you not be a little preemptive and attempt to do it when no one is there?
- rorrr 14y ago
  This was public information before this interactive map.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    That doesn't really matter in this case. Browsing public registries manually is one thing, having an interactive map is another. The latter makes it orders of magnitude easier to do what the original commenter suggested.
    - rorrr 14y ago
      So you're blaming the website for showing some publicly available information in a more accessible form? That's security by obscurity. So not security.
      - enraged_camel 14y ago
protomyth 14y ago
Despite recent events, the worst year for mass gun shootings was 1929. Looking at the 2011 preliminary data[1] death by Assault (homicide) dropped out of the top 15 causes of death in the USA. It is still more dangerous for parents to own a swimming pool as opposed to a gun. We don't teach actual risks and pay for it daily. Stunts like this just paint targets on people. Gun owners will be targets for theft of guns. Non-gun owners will be targeted by other types of criminals. Neighbors might learn some things about their neighbors. Overall, the incentive to register anything goes down. edit: add footnote 1) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  > Gun owners will be targets for theft of guns. Non-gun owners will be targeted by other types of criminals. And let's not forget the corollary of the first one: It's not just that gun owners have their property stolen. It's that criminals (who may be felons ineligible to purchase them from legal channels) come into possession of those firearms.
learn 14y ago
This is absolutely sad and pathetic.
danso 14y ago
So here's an explanation of why these stories have been done...this is not unheard of open records project and several have been done before... 1. The accountability angle is that this allows the public to see who is allowed to own guns. In some jurisdictions where regulations are strict, these stories have exposed how gun permits go to those with political favor or to those who aren't legally permitted to have a license. 2. It's hard to see how this puts the gun owners in extra danger. You really think there's a subset of crooks who desperately need a gun yet have no other legal or illegal means to attain one except to break into an arms household? Is that really the path of least resistance for burglars? 3. Wouldn't burglars look up county assessor records in order to rob the most wealthy people? 4. Ok, I'll pose the question: many other types of licenses are public record...such as who is qualified to be practice medicine or deal in real estate. Why doesn't a neighbor have the right to know if their neighbors are allowed to have firearms? (The records are for permit holders, not gun ownership) Gun permits are issued via government action...I have the right to know why police arrested my neighbor...why wouldn't I have e right to know who the police is permitting to own a handgun (especially if I have been denied a permit?)
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  How about a map of compact items with a high street resale value? That's what this is.
  - danso 14y ago
    Which kind of compact items do you have in mind that are regulated by police bureaucracy? Also, read the OP. This is a map of permit holders, not of gun owners.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      >This is a map of permit holders, not of gun owners. Let's hope for a moment that you have some evidence that some nontrivial portion of the people who pay hundreds of dollars for a permit do so without then subsequently purchasing a firearm, so that we can't just facially dismiss your distinction because of the effective 1:1 correlation between permit holders and gun owners. Perhaps a lot of people hold permits so that they can possess guns they don't actually own, for some reason. There is still a bit of trouble. It's a permit to possess a gun. Even if the permit holder doesn't own the gun, it would be totally irrational to even get the permit unless they were going to possess one. And the thief is looking to steal it from the person who possesses it, not the person who owns it (when they aren't the same person). So I guess I don't understand your point.
DioJenny 14y ago
Here's the reporter's info; he has a carry permit too: Dwight R Worley 23006 139 Ave Springfield Gardens, NY 11413 (718) 527-0832 (718) 527-0832

33 points by ronnier 14y ago

The gun scare is getting ridiculous. Things like this make people think that anyone who owns a gun might just walk into a crowded place and start shooting.

mkarazin 14y ago
And makes it easier for criminals to avoid houses with guns, thus putting the non gun population at risk.
- coryl 14y ago
  Is there evidence or any cases of criminals doing informational background searches on their targets?
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Burglars routinely monitor the obituaries for dates of funerals to break into houses while the funeral is taking place. For instance: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120330/NEWS01/703309874 http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120330/NEWS01/703309874 But there are many more examples of that. For criminals information is a competitive edge, just like for everybody else. The safe bet is that they exploit that edge to the maximum of their abilities to increase their rewards.
    - droithomme 14y ago
      This is definitely a huge problem in many areas. I've known around a dozen people whose houses were robbed while they were at a funeral. Last funeral I went to, recently, the funeral director told the family members they needed to arrange for people to housesit during the services. They did and two of them were then faced with burglars trying to break in. There are organized crime gangs that read obituaries and make it their business to take your stuff. If you are flying out of state to bury your spouse or parent, the risk is greater. In two cases I know of, a moving truck arrived as soon as they left for the airport and took absolutely everything.
  - csense 14y ago
    If a criminal can gather information about his target easily, simply and anonymously, it would be stupid for him (or her) not to do so. AFAIK police departments everywhere have been advising people for at least five decades to be sure someone picks up your mail and newspapers if you're planning to be away, because criminals will realize that nobody lives in or checks up on a house if the mailbox is overflowing. Haven't you ever seen the scene in the original "Home Alone" where the Wet Bandits are casing the neighborhood before they hit the houses?
  - nekojima 14y ago
    A number of professional footballers in the UK had their houses broken into during matches they were playing in, in the last two or three years. In some cases repeatedly, after new items were purchased to replace those stolen, the house was broken into again, during another match. I'd guess home matches are best, because their wife/gf/partner will be more likely to go to the stadium, rather than for an away match, when their wife may not travel.
- Luff 14y ago
  A Swedish e-bay type of service recently got in trouble with the press for allowing private sellers of guns to post their phone numbers in the ads. The reasoning behind this was that criminals could use the phone number to figure out where the sellers lived, and go steal their guns. Funny how these things differ between places.
csense 14y ago
> make people think that anyone who owns a gun might just walk into a crowded place and start shooting. That's exactly how a particular side of the debate wants to frame the issue. It's a notion that "ordinary" people aren't capable of responsibly making life-or-death decisions. That guns have to be a monopoly of "extraordinary" people -- police and miliatry -- who are working for the state. (As if they aren't themselves "ordinary" people!)
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  >That's exactly how a particular side of the debate wants to frame the issue. And these strawman arguments being tossed around is exactly why we can't have a productive discussion regarding guns in this country. When you insist on turning the other side into a ridiculous caricature, why do you expect to be taken seriously?
  - csense 14y ago
    I don't know who you're accusing of "turning the other side into a ridiculous caricature," me or the paper. But I'll respond as if the answer to this question is "me." Let's imagine they published a list of all the African-Americans in their area instead. What's your gut reaction? It could be claimed to be just a matter-of-fact reporting of data obtained in a routine government census. But I have a feeling that race, in this country, is such a divisive issue that a lot of readers -- of all positions on the issue of race, and both African-Americans and non-African-Americans -- would read into it an implication of Us versus Them, that we should be Concerned about the distribution of African-Americans. Many readers would see an implication that this piece is supposed to be an eye-opener, deemed worthy of newspaper publication on the angle of "You may think your neighborhood doesn't have any African-Americans, but actually they're everywhere." Now re-read the previous two paragraphs, but replace the word "race" with "gun control," and "African-Americans" with "gun owners." I will admit that I'm deliberately making the argument as bald as possible, in a way that makes it as easy as possible to see the fallacy. When you read the way I explain it, you may say "No one believes that!" And I would agree that almost no one consciously believes that. But a lot of human thinking is unconscious, not based on reasons, facts, and observations. Sometimes this unconscious reasoning is based on tribal psychology, Us versus Them, and that's what this article is speaking to. Since the argument's not laid out in plain terms, it may escape the reader's conscious thought process. But if it doesn't escape the unconscious thought process -- if it makes you feel "With all the news about gun violence lately, and all those gun owners around, I don't feel safe...someone should really do something about all those gun owners..." it can sway a person's position without capturing their full attention or being subjected to the scrutiny of the rational mind. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Ac...

dfc 14y ago

Title should be: "NY newspaper runs interactive map with names, addresses of handgun permit holders" You do not need to read beyond the first ten words to realize this: "The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver" In order to have a rational debate on improving gun control we need to use words correctly...

3825 14y ago
Are assault rifles licensed separately?
- icegreentea 14y ago
  True assault rifles are some of the most difficult things to get your hands on. All automatic (which include burst fire) weapons count as machine guns under the National Firearms Act, and are highly regulated. No machinegun made and registered after 1986 can be legally transferred between civilians. Amongst other difficulties and regulation, that restriction means automatic weapons typically sell for enormous amounts. The term you're looking for is 'assault weapon' which is a generally poorly defined term. Under the terms of the previous federal assault weapon ban, an assault weapon (rifle) is any weapon that has in addition to detachable magazines (a "clip" in popular culture), has at least two of the following features: a folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, and/or muzzle mounted grenade launcher, as well as AR-15s, TEC-9s, Uzis, and AK-47s - those models being specifically named and banned. Since we are looking at New York specifically, then the following apply. Rifles and shotguns ("long guns") do not require a state permit for purchase, nor registration, nor a license. Handguns require all three. There are additional restrictions on handguns that will typically limit their licensees to using and carrying them for sport. New York has an assault weapon ban in place, effectively continuing the expired Federal ban.
  - 3825 14y ago
    Thank you. Does the NRA not consider the (effective) ban on machine guns a violation of the second amendment?

bmmayer1 14y ago

In theory there should be nothing wrong with putting already-publicly available data online in a format digestible by the general public. The issue is that we put permit holders on a public list in the first place. These are law abiding citizens who have registered their guns legally. Making the information public, especially in stunts like this, does nothing but dissuade people from registering their firearms to avoid being targeted like criminals by overzealous neighbors and overeager journalists.

somedayme 14y ago
But at least they have guns to defend themselves!
- DamnYuppie 14y ago
  As was mentioned above this is a silly comment. Most burglaries in the US occur when no one is home. Which is done for a reason as 50% of the people in this country have fire arms. Where as in countries such as UK with strict gun laws almost 1/2 of the burglaries are committed when someone is home.
subsystem 14y ago
"Law abiding citizens" follow the law even if it doesn't please them.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  "Law abiding citizens" follow the law, tautologically. But if you want more citizens to be law abiding, one of the best ways is to make the laws less objectionable and easier to abide.
genwin 14y ago
It might instead persuade people to register their firearms, if criminals use the data to avoid these houses.
edj 14y ago

diego_moita 14y ago

This is irrelevant. The really dangerous ones are the video-game players.

enraged_camel 14y ago
I don't know why you got downvoted, as I found your sarcasm humorous. :)

jkubicek 14y ago

This is absolutely terrible. This is a perfect example of the persecution gun owners fear when they're asked to register their weapons. We need more gun registration and exposing data like this does nothing but hinder that goal.

genwin 14y ago
Not if criminals use the data to avoid these houses. Then people might register in greater numbers. They might buy a gun just to get on the public list.
- gojomo 14y ago
  This may be an effect, but while some criminals want to avoid a confrontation with a gun-wielding resident... others want to steal guns. By helping criminals self-sort to the right targets for the risks they prefer, the net effect on crime/safety could be negative, by shifting break-ins to where they are most likely to succeed.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Is gun theft ever really that much of a specific goal? Seems guns are easy enough to get on the street that breaking into a house just to steal guns has a much higher risk than is normally necessary. EDIT: Well that didn't take long to acquire a silent Reddit-style "independent-thought downvote."
    - Anechoic 14y ago
      You'd be suprised: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/thieves_break_into_springfield.html http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/thieves_break...
      - rhizome 14y ago
        That's one instance with a very large (no?) safe. I was asking about the prevalence of that kind of crime, not whether it had ever happened before in the history of weapons, or theft itself.

GunsKillPeople 14y ago

Nice. Stupid gun owners. Lets post the names of these violent people.

GunsKillPeople 14y ago

Nice. Stupid gun owners. Lets post the names of these violent people.

droithomme 14y ago

This will be really helpful for those that want to steal and resell guns on the black market. Hopefully the newspaper will follow up with a list of the addresses of those with costly jewelry, and narcotic pain medication prescriptions, along with schedules of the times they are at work. And yes, perfect example of the dangers of registration.

TomGullen 14y ago
But at least they will be better able to defend themselves as their guns are robbed from them
- DamnYuppie 14y ago
  This is petty comment. Most home intrusions in the US occur when no one is home. If you were planning on robbing a home that is known to have guns would you not be a little preemptive and attempt to do it when no one is there?
rorrr 14y ago
This was public information before this interactive map.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  That doesn't really matter in this case. Browsing public registries manually is one thing, having an interactive map is another. The latter makes it orders of magnitude easier to do what the original commenter suggested.
  - rorrr 14y ago
    So you're blaming the website for showing some publicly available information in a more accessible form? That's security by obscurity. So not security.
    - enraged_camel 14y ago

protomyth 14y ago

Despite recent events, the worst year for mass gun shootings was 1929. Looking at the 2011 preliminary data[1] death by Assault (homicide) dropped out of the top 15 causes of death in the USA. It is still more dangerous for parents to own a swimming pool as opposed to a gun. We don't teach actual risks and pay for it daily. Stunts like this just paint targets on people. Gun owners will be targets for theft of guns. Non-gun owners will be targeted by other types of criminals. Neighbors might learn some things about their neighbors. Overall, the incentive to register anything goes down. edit: add footnote 1) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
> Gun owners will be targets for theft of guns. Non-gun owners will be targeted by other types of criminals. And let's not forget the corollary of the first one: It's not just that gun owners have their property stolen. It's that criminals (who may be felons ineligible to purchase them from legal channels) come into possession of those firearms.

learn 14y ago

This is absolutely sad and pathetic.

danso 14y ago

So here's an explanation of why these stories have been done...this is not unheard of open records project and several have been done before... 1. The accountability angle is that this allows the public to see who is allowed to own guns. In some jurisdictions where regulations are strict, these stories have exposed how gun permits go to those with political favor or to those who aren't legally permitted to have a license. 2. It's hard to see how this puts the gun owners in extra danger. You really think there's a subset of crooks who desperately need a gun yet have no other legal or illegal means to attain one except to break into an arms household? Is that really the path of least resistance for burglars? 3. Wouldn't burglars look up county assessor records in order to rob the most wealthy people? 4. Ok, I'll pose the question: many other types of licenses are public record...such as who is qualified to be practice medicine or deal in real estate. Why doesn't a neighbor have the right to know if their neighbors are allowed to have firearms? (The records are for permit holders, not gun ownership) Gun permits are issued via government action...I have the right to know why police arrested my neighbor...why wouldn't I have e right to know who the police is permitting to own a handgun (especially if I have been denied a permit?)

waterlesscloud 14y ago
How about a map of compact items with a high street resale value? That's what this is.
- danso 14y ago
  Which kind of compact items do you have in mind that are regulated by police bureaucracy? Also, read the OP. This is a map of permit holders, not of gun owners.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >This is a map of permit holders, not of gun owners. Let's hope for a moment that you have some evidence that some nontrivial portion of the people who pay hundreds of dollars for a permit do so without then subsequently purchasing a firearm, so that we can't just facially dismiss your distinction because of the effective 1:1 correlation between permit holders and gun owners. Perhaps a lot of people hold permits so that they can possess guns they don't actually own, for some reason. There is still a bit of trouble. It's a permit to possess a gun. Even if the permit holder doesn't own the gun, it would be totally irrational to even get the permit unless they were going to possess one. And the thief is looking to steal it from the person who possesses it, not the person who owns it (when they aren't the same person). So I guess I don't understand your point.

DioJenny 14y ago

Here's the reporter's info; he has a carry permit too: Dwight R Worley 23006 139 Ave Springfield Gardens, NY 11413 (718) 527-0832 (718) 527-0832