Newspaper's handgun-permit map draws criticism

NEW YORK (AP) — A newspaper's publication of the names and addresses of handgun permit holders in two New York counties has sparked online discussions — and a healthy dose of outrage.
The Journal News, a Gannett Co. newspaper covering three counties in the Hudson Valley north of New York City and operating the website lohud.com, posted a story Sunday detailing a public-records request it filed to obtain the information.
The 1,800-word story headlined, "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood," said the information was sought after the Dec. 14 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., about 50 miles northeast of the paper's headquarters in White Plains. A gunman killed his mother, drove to an elementary school and massacred 20 first-graders and six adults, then shot himself. All the weapons used were legally owned by his mother.
The Journal News story includes comments from both sides of the gun-rights debate and presents the data as answering concerns of those who would like to know whether there are guns in their neighborhood. It reports that about 44,000 people in Westchester, Putnam and Rockland counties are licensed to own a handgun and that rifles and shotguns can be purchased without a permit.
It was accompanied online by maps of the results for Westchester and Rockland counties; similar details had not yet been provided by Putnam County. A reader clicking on the maps can see the name and address of each pistol or revolver permit holder. Accompanying text states that inclusion does not necessarily mean that an individual owns a weapon, just who obtained a license.
By Wednesday afternoon, the maps had been shared about 30,000 times on Facebook and other social media.
Most online comments have criticized the publication of the data, and many suggest it puts the permit holders in danger because criminals have a guide to places they can steal guns. Others maintain it tells criminals who does not have a gun and may be easier to victimize, or where to find law enforcement figures against whom they might hold a grudge.
Some responded by publicizing the home addresses and phone numbers of the reporter who wrote the piece, along with other journalists at the paper and even senior executives of Gannett. Many echoed the idea that publicizing gun permit holders' names is tantamount to accusing them of doing something wrong, comparing the move to publishing lists of registered sex offenders.
The Journal News is standing behind the project. It said in the story that it published a similar list in 2006.
"Frequently, the work of journalists is not popular. One of our roles is to report publicly available information on timely issues, even when unpopular," Janet Hasson, president and publisher of The Journal News Media Group, said in an emailed statement. "We knew publication of the database (as well as the accompanying article providing context) would be controversial, but we felt sharing information about gun permits in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings."
Roy Clark, a senior scholar at the Poynter Institute, a Florida-based journalism think tank, said publishing the data was "too indiscriminate."
He, too, compared the maps to similar efforts involving sex-offender registries or lists of those arrested for driving under the influence, noting that such a move is usually done to indicate a serious problem that requires a neighbor or parent to maintain vigilance.
"You get the connotation that somehow there's something essentially wrong with this behavior," he said of the gun permit database.
"My predisposition is to support the journalism," Clark said. "I want to be persuaded that this story or this practice has some higher social purpose, but I can't find it."
Also common among the comments on the lohud.com were suggestions about suing the paper for violating permit-holders' privacy rights. Such a move would likely be unsuccessful.
"The media has no liability for publishing public information," said Edward Rudofsky, a First Amendment attorney at Zane and Rudofsky in New York. The issue does present a clash between First and Second amendment rights, he said, but in general, the law protects publishing public information unless the intent was to harm someone.
Personally I don't see the fuss. If you are such proud gun owners and so vocal about it we already know where the guns are. Almost every gun owner I know and some I've just briefly chatted with beats his or her chest about it on a regular basis.Â
 @eugenevoter You don't see the fuss? What if one of those gun owners has a stalker ex-boyfriend, they've bought a gun and moved to protect themselves, and now, thanks to the media, they are found by the stalker? People need to wake up and realize that our rights are being taken away, one by one!
Â
 @eugenevoter Your logic is that because some volunteer that information, others shouldn't have privacy? =/ That makes zero sense. And either you have asked everyone you know if they own a gun and they've told you the truth, or far more likely... you know plenty of gun owners who don't want to share that info with you. Either way, it's their business to share or withhold as they see fit.
In addition, I would urge KVAL and all other media outlets to treat incidents where a responsible armed citizen has ended a potential anti-gun related news story by being at the right place at the right time.
Â
A number of anecdotal quotes:Â "The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun".
"When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns". and finally, "Ask not what your Country can do for you, ask what you can do for your Country".
I can make my little corner of my Country safer, can you?
Â
Americans have grown to expect that their Country and it's laws (good or bad) has an obligation and capability to protect them. This wrong thinking. Police may respond after an incident, they cannot protect you from an incident no matter what it say's on their car door.
Â
Americans must accept personal responsibility for their actions, and their personal safety.
@Ranger5Zero If the police aren't there when the bad guy starts shooting all they can do is arrest the surviving bad guy, if any.  Â
In order to save a burglar the embarrassment of getting caught dead while robbing my place, I have posted signs at all convenient entry points indicating that they will not survive an attempt on my home. This may make some of my neighbors a little nervous
 Three cheers for Oregonians and their vote to keep CCW permit holders information, Private!
Many groups in Oregon have tried to force concealed carry license information to be made publicly available. Fortunately, our sheriff is AWESOME at protecting our identities. He even has everyone sign a paper saying that he can't legally share the information, just to throw a roadblock up in front of would-be privacy invaders like Baldr Odinson and Ceasefire Oregon. =) Fortunately, despite the best efforts of Ceasefire Oregon, HB 4045 passed and was signed into law, which "prohibits public body from disclosing records or information that identifies person as applicant for, or holder of, concealed handgun license."
this is a classic example of why they should not have been givin the names of the indaviduals. they wanted the names for a personal reason! now look at what they have done! i think whoever published the names and everyone else involved should have there name and address put on the front page of the newspaper! and why! they are on the front page.
"...Shall not be infringed"....molon labe.
The blogger who turned the tables on the so called "newspaper" has my congratulations. "Pay Backs Are a Bytch" come to mind. Now I wonder how long before the mods will censor my comment. Seems like the first amendment and the bill of rights, are no longer relevant, thanks to political correctness.
 @gannon bill gannon While I agree with the first part of you comment, if it is censored it will only be because you cursed, albeit with alternate spelling. It's still not allowed. Also, the first amendment doesn't mean just anyone has to give you an equal platform for expressing your views... Constitutionally speaking, KVAL has the right to delete anything and anyone who says something they just don't like. They tend to follow their commenting guidelines when it comes to deleting comments though, and no cursing is listed.
The problem here is the inherent assumption that if someone owns a gun, they're by default dangerous, or likely to use the gun if they get angry--all things people think they "know" from watching movies and TV, but which in the real world is rarely true. Many rational, law-abiding gun owners don't want their neighbors knowing they have guns precisely because that knowledge would elicit these stereotypes which do not, in fact, fit them in the least.Â
Â
Part of this whole issue is that those without a direct knowledge of guns (and gun owners) still believe they do know about them because of what they've seen in movies, TV or on the 10 o'clock news, all of which present extremely distorted pictures of gun use and the average gun owner. I remember reading one article that included comments pro and con about the idea of arming teachers. One man commented that if a teacher were armed, he could just see the teacher, if he were frustrated by a recalcitrant student, pointing the gun at him in warning, when the fact is that no responsible gun owner would ever point a gun at anyone for such a frivolous reason; it simply wouldn't happen. They're not used for display or emphasis, but only as a very last resort.
This comment has been deleted
 @NotGoingAway This comment has NOTHING to do with the story and should be deleted.Â
I agree, this is an invasion of privacy, and the media who put it out deserve to be condemned for it. Â However, I do agree that the information should be available to a person, for specific individuals, if they submit a request to law enforcement, such as in a case where someone is being stalked or fears that a threatening individual might be armed. Â Unfortunately, here in Oregon this year, even that sort of request was made illegal, and gun ownership is now completely private. Â If I want to know if my dangerous nephew has a gun permit, or my babysitter, or the employee with anger issues, tough luck. Â
 @Baldr Odinson Like it or not, you do not have a right to know what I own. That's MY business. But hey, why stop at guns? Why aren't you pushing for mental health diagnosis information to be available to specific individuals such as in a case where someone is being stalked or fears that a threatening individual might be a danger? Surely the case can be made that registered firearm owners are far less of a threat than those who have mental illnesses with symptoms of dissociation, uncontrollable emotional swings, psychosis, aggression and violence, intense paranoia, people-centered obsessions, and lack of empathy.
@Baldr Odinson I would suggest that you don't hang out with your dangerous nephew and if you think that your babysitter or your employee pose a risk to you, then fire them.
 @slumlord420  @Baldr But that's the problem, isn't it?  How much of a risk are they? There's no way to know now if they are legally armed.
 @Baldr Odinson A knife's as bad as a gun. It never sticks, never jams, never runs out of ammo, and you don't need training to know how to use it.
 @Baldr Odinson Your reading comprehension skills suck. I said nothing of killing power. You spoke of risk, so I did the same. You should consider your dangerous nephew and employee with anger issues a risk whether they have a registered weapon or not. I didn't even mention people with concealed weapons permits, but I did take a look at your link. There have been at least 50,000+ firearm homicides since they started collecting data, but only 499 of them have been concealed permit holders? So, roughly 10%+ of firearm owners account for less than 1% of all firearm homicides? LOL!!! Thanks for the stats.
 @PleaseBeSmart It would be foolish to assume that a dangerous person with a gun has the same killing power as a dangerous person with a knife or other non-firearm weapon.  And, yes, people with concealed weapons permit do commit murders and attempted murders.  Hundreds of examples here:  http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
 @Baldr Odinson It would be foolish to assume that someone is any more or less of a risk because they do or do not have a registered weapon. =/Â
@Baldr Odinson @Baldr I understand your concern, but if you think someone is dangerous whether they are armed or not just keep your distance from them and operate under the assumption that they are armed.
Definitely a violation of privacy, shows people your name and address without your permission. Maybe a lawsuit for invasion of privacy will ensue. It is no one's business if I own a legal gun or not! I don't understand the purpose for this "news"either, there is nothing in it that makes good sense. RandomNumbers, I agree, each "news" outlet has its own agenda, and it is quite clear once you start reading or listening to them. I hope someone takes steps to stop things like this. People are gullible enough as it is.
 @NativeCB Unfortunately, some states have made it public information and NY is one of them. So legally, it's not a violation of privacy. All the more reason to fight licensing and registration.
 @PleaseBeSmart While not in direct relation to this thread, I though you might enjoy this blog post. I found it long, but well worth the read!  http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
A violation of privacy and a blatant F.U. to those citizens. "news" outlets (including this one) are nothing more than agenda biased propoganda.
 I see a class action lawsuit coming for the newspaper and GOOD. They should be sued, and I hope those who have their privacy infringed upon get a buttload of money. Seems the newspaper might understand the language of "money" more than the language of the US Constitution. Idiots.