Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy The Internet United States News

New York Pistol Permit Owner List Leaked 899

Posted by Soulskill
from the time-for-a-mashup dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York Pistol Permit Owner List Leaked

Comments Filter:
  • F*ck off, gun haters (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 20, 2013 @08:51AM (#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:Or the reverse (Score:3, Interesting)

    by niiler (716140) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @09:55AM (#42638951) Journal
    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 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ganjadude (952775) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @09:59AM (#42638985) Homepage
    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
  • by ganjadude (952775) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @10:17AM (#42639081) Homepage
    tell my neighbors, who were on this list, and broken into since the list was posted, and nothing but the gun safe was touched that you have no problem with this. This list was made in their own words "so readers could decide where it is safe" which is kind of a weighted line in the context. What if we had a list of all gay people, or all people who buy porn because "we want our readers to know where its ok for the children to play" I dont think that would fly
  • by GrumpySteen (1250194) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @10:43AM (#42639235)

    People who commit a crime think they'll get away with it. They aren't agreeing to get caught, much less give up their rights.

    If you can't hold it and step behind some bushes to pee and get spotted by a ten year old kid, you can be convicted of indecent exposure in most states. That can get you placed on a sex offender list for life in many states (some, like Colorado, came to their senses and created a second crime for non-sexual exposure which is neither a sex crime nor a felony). Once you're on the sex offender list, your name, address and photo would be made available to anyone who cares to look for registered sex offenders in the area you live in. In some places, you'd no longer be able to live within 1000 feet of a school or day care center. You'd have to tell anyone you were trying to rent from that you were a convicted sex offender, too, so most places wouldn't take you as a tenant. It's also a felony, so you'd no longer be able to own a gun or vote. You'd be required to admit that you were convicted sex offender on job applications, which would severely limit your employment opportunities. The list of long-term affects on your life goes on and on, but basically you're screwed for life.

    Cruel and unusual is a fitting description.

    Do you really think that you would have been agreeing to all that when you decided to step behind a bush and take a leak? Of course not. You'd have thought you wouldn't be seen and it would be okay.

  • by Barsteward (969998) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @10:56AM (#42639367)
    So do you always answer your door with a gun in hand? Or do you ask the criminal to wait 5 minutes whilst you go and fetch yours?
  • Re:subject (Score:4, Interesting)

    by level_headed_midwest (888889) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @11:18AM (#42639585)

    The other thing to consider is that the likely reason the newspaper published this list was to invite retaliation against the firearms owners. There also was no legitimate public interest in disclosing these names, such as there would have been if say, you published everybody who made a campaign contribution to $POLITICAL_FIGURE in excess of $AMOUNT. I suggest we publish the telephone numbers, home addresses, and a list of everybody in the households of the newspaper's editorial staff. It's only fair to know who is behind a media outlet and having disproportionate influence on the public, isn't it?

  • Re:subject (Score:5, Interesting)

    by poity (465672) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @12:08PM (#42639977)

    When I think of FOIA, I think of individuals keeping tabs on government, not individuals keeping tabs on other individuals. Transparency on what the government does is very much different from transparency on what private citizens do.

  • Re:Or the reverse (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Entropius (188861) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @02:22PM (#42640909)

    I'm a pacifist too, but I have no beef with private ownership of firearms. Do you believe in arming the police? Is that anti-pacifistic? It seems like police carrying guns to protect society from violent people is no different than society itself carrying guns to protect themselves from aggression.

    Pacifism doesn't mean not being armed; it means not being aggressive.

  • Re:Or the reverse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Luckyo (1726890) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @03:41PM (#42641389)

    Pretty much this. Most people watch far too many hollywood movies. Burglar's goal is stealing your stuff with as little risk as possible.

    That means that #1 rule of any decent burglar is to enter when there's no one at home. That's why they employ countless techniques, such as calling, ringing the bell and so on before trying to enter.

    Real methods of fighting burglars usually involve either convincing them you're home when you're not, or getting security setup that makes them think they have a high chance of getting detected during the crime.

  • Re:Or the reverse (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 0111 1110 (518466) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @07:39PM (#42643017)

    They are actively monitored for psychological problems, they are trained to distinguish friend from foe, and they are trained to store their service weapons properly.

    I can't tell if you are serious or not. No one could be that naive. Their 'friend from foe' detector is simply that anyone without a badge is an enemy. And as far as 'psychological problems' most of the them are sociopaths: the worst kind of person to be walking around with a firearm. The kind of person who can kill innocent people and just walk away without feeling even a hint of remorse. You could put their firearms in better hands by simply closing your eyes and pointing randomly.

Maternity pay? Now every Tom, Dick and Harry will get pregnant. -- Malcolm Smith

Working...