

Journalists’ Addresses Posted In Revenge For Posting Of Gun Permit Owners - emeraldd
http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/26/journalists-addresses-posted-google-maps-gun/

======
pdx
That some random individual with a blog can harvest the addresses of every
single registered gun owner with a freedom of information request is thought
provoking to me.

In the past, I had vague fears about what such lists could be used for, but my
fears were always aimed toward the group that held civil control. Now I am
struck with how easy it is for the $FANATICAL_CAUSE down the street to obtain
such a list. Such freedom of information is dangerous.

This inability for a government to avoid releasing large databases full of
dangerous information to random people is frightening.

Is this the way the world is heading? If so, I have some business ideas I need
to start working on.

Let me use the freedom of information act to obtain the database that maps
license plates to names and addresses. Next time you accidentally cut somebody
off in traffic, expect him to be waiting at your house when you get home,
after visiting my website. Maybe he's already had a little visit with your
family while he was waiting.

Let me use the the freedom of information act to obtain the tax returns of
every person in an area. We'll publish how much you make, where you work, and
the names and ages of your children, so anybody who might be interested in
such things can visit my website to do searches. After all, information should
be free, right?

The only thing that scares me more than my government having complete and
total knowledge of my life, is for it to be accessible by any lunatic with a
computer. That was a worry I didn't even have when I woke up this morning.

~~~
dclusin
It sounds to me like this information was intended to be public and
disseminated to interested parties (researchers, critics, etc). From the
article: "Gun permit holding is public information in New York, and can be
acquired through a mere request via the Freedom of Information Act."

So I think your example of DMV registrations or tax returns being obtained
through a freedom of information act is a bit of a stretch because the DMV has
explicitly stated on the myriad forms I've signed that they will only ever
share your information with the court when required. Or in the case of a DUI
they will also sell your information to ambulance chasing lawyers (personal
experience).

~~~
Spooky23
Tax data is protected by Federal law and regulation. It's pretty secure.

DMV data, on the other hand, is for sale in most states, and is exchanged with
other states and in some cases Canadian provincial entities as well.
Telemarketers, marketing firms, etc all buy your personal information and
registration data from the DMV, often getting it in near real time.

~~~
dclusin
This is good to know. Out of curiosity do you have any experience with these
sorts of agreements with state DMV's? Any more info?

------
freehunter
I don't currently own any guns and have none registered to my name, but if gun
owners were labelled similarly to sex offenders on a publicly searchable map
like in the article, I would go out of my way to get put on that map. I don't
shy from a gun; I hunt and target shoot using my family and friends' guns. I
just don't own any due to not having a reasonable case for owning one in my
current living situation (I have roommates).

What purpose would that map serve? The only thing I can think of is your
easily-offended neighbors would avoid you and your house. Good. If you're
going to get up in arms (so to speak) about private and legal gun ownership
and knowing that I own a gun is going to change your opinion of me for the
worse, I'd like to know that before I invest significant time into building a
relationship with you as my neighbor. If you're going to assume I'm a criminal
just because I own a gun, I want nothing to do with you. Another benefit I
could see from this type of map is a convenient listing of addresses that
burglars may tend to shy away from. No one wants to rob a house and find a gun
in their face if there is a house right next door without weaponry.

Do I want this information presented in this way? Not particularly. There's
not much benefit to the average person in knowing where legally registered
guns are kept, and potentially negative consequences if the neighborhood kids
now know that your house has guns they could get a hold of.

I strongly disagree with the intentions of the journalists in this case, and
applaud the lawyer for his response in a vigilante justice sort of way.

~~~
jusben1369
I am not supporting the publishing of either set of information. So this is
Devil's advocate a little. The only benefit I can see from publishing the
original list would be that as a neighbor it might be nice to know if your
neighbor's owned guns. Why? Well, if they also displayed disturbing behavior
it might be good to have that as context. To dramatically simplify - perhaps
it would be nice to have some additional context to put around the house down
the street or across the way where there is ongoing issues of domestic
violence/mental illness or disturbing behavior.

One of the most disappointing elements of Newton was that the family
understood that their child had severe behavioural issues and also kept the
means for massive destruction within the house. Perhaps a third party could
have encouraged the removal or one or the other when witnessing the anti
social behaviour.

Lastly, however flawed, the newspaper did present a logic of "common public
good" while the response was purely vindicative/vengeance. It's worth noting.

~~~
technoslut
>it might be nice to know if your neighbor's owned guns

I'm sure it's nice to know for robbers as well if they knew you didn't have
one. The info was always available but now the ones who don't make an honest
living know this.

~~~
jusben1369
This "robber" argument is incredibly FUD'ish and worth thinking through
further. When we talk about gun ownership, robbers and guns we're usually
discussing the fear of getting shot by a burgular. Getting robbed sucks but
most of us have insurance and all of us agree it pales in comparison to
getting shot.

So let's think this through:

\- If a robber is robbing my house, and is armed, and we accidentally confront
each other, which is my preferred state of mind? Which outcome is most likely
to result in me not being shot? a) Robber believes me to not be carrying any
gun per this map? b) Robber believes me to be carrying a gun (per this map?)
c) Robber has no access to this information so has to assume there's a 50/50
chance I'm packing heat?

Therefore the greatest risk, if any really comes from this map, is probably
the identified gun owner vs the identified non gun owner should the robber
(incorrectly) conclude the gun owner is away and the non gun owner is home and
needing to quickly steal electronics for instant cash to buy illegal drugs.

~~~
shawn-butler
It is not FUD. If someone wants to steal a gun they now have a list of soft
targets from which to choose.

It reminds me of the furor that erupted when someone used 4square and twitter
APIs to create a map of homes for which the owner was traveling. Wasn't it
calked rob me or something?

In that case API access was terminated because the use violated the terms of
service. Creating a map to promote breakins isn't something twitter or 4square
does. I can see researchers or auditors having a valid use case for obtaining
a list of weapons permits but a journalist/activist who just wants to disrupt
the peace? Pretty dumb decision by the local authority or more probably one
motivated by the politics of some local bureaucrat wanting to "make a
difference" and abusing their authority.

~~~
jusben1369
Yes and I'm old enough to remember when a small but vocal % of people refused
to put out automated out of office email replies because who knew who would
receive them (anyone who emailed you) and what they could do to you knowing
that you were away. Seems funny now but people at the time were certain it was
a ticket to be robbed or worse.

------
Torgo
Stuff like this pretty much confirms the NRA's fears about gun registration.
It didn't immediately result in gun confiscation or anything, but yeah--it's
just used for registration today, but tomorrow it's used against you.

~~~
technoslut
I don't like this but I don't understand how this deals with "NRA fear." Many
NRA members are proud they have a gun. Like anyone else, they are eager to
tell or show why like them.

~~~
tedunangst
It's like the google real name debate in reverse. Some people are proud to
identify with a group, so therefore we should out everybody, right?

------
ISL
When concealed-carry permit addresses were published by a journalist in our
town in 2007, people who had fled abusive relationships were immediately
forced to move.

<http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/108418>

Transparent government is a net positive, but as with everything, we have to
be careful with the consequences of our actions.

~~~
jrogers65
Personally, I think that this has less to do with having a transparent than it
does with personal privacy. I think that the latter trumps the former.
Government is supposed to be open because everybody funds it through taxes. A
private individual should have the freedom to remain private if they so
choose.

------
deltaepsilon
I live in Utah, where most people own guns and a large group, myself included,
have concealed carry permits. All interactions with strangers happen in that
context, and we do ok. We've had some shootings. They're s seen as a reminder
that individuals should carry more, not less.

~~~
emeraldd
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to
back up his acts with his life."

\-- Robert A. Heinlein

[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertahe100989.h...](http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertahe100989.html)

~~~
deltaepsilon
I've heard this quote a lot. Carrying a loaded weapon is a MASSIVE
responsibility. It's really scary at first, but you can learn to do it
effectively and safely with enough training. The training is critical.

~~~
spamizbad
A responsibility I'm not sure all (even law-abiding) adults are capable of
handling.

[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pizza-shooter-
claim...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pizza-shooter-claims-stand-
ground-article-1.1225019)

Customer complains about Pizza taking too long. Gets in verbal altercation
with armed gentleman. Result: shots fired. Thankfully no deaths.

~~~
sarvinc
Surely not all adults are capable of handling the responsibility of several
things; debt, firearms, a vehicle, alcohol etc. I don't want to live in a
place where this is a justification for anything.

------
amolsarva
The main argument, and a silly one, summarizing the outrage about the map is
"now criminals can find guns to steal".

This is very silly -- there are plenty of maps to use to find banks, gun
stores, gasoline, fertilizer...or rich people's homes.

~~~
delinka
The inverse of the list is a collection of targets that are "safe" to invade.

Edit: added quotes. Some criminal will certainly, without thinking, decide
these are safe targets. And statistically speaking, they'd probably be right
more often than not. At the least, it's a great list of targets to avoid if
you're planning to loot a neighborhood.

~~~
cheald
Registration is generally not required for a shotgun, which is what is
commonly recommended for home invasion defense. While there is certainly going
to be an overlap between owners of registered handguns and owners of
unregistered shotguns, "house is not on the map, no guns to worry about in
there" is a false assumption.

~~~
chrisbennet
Who recommends a shotgun for home defense? Its a poor choice as it is less
maneuverable, ranges are very short and gives the attacker a lot of leverage
to pull it away from you. Of course, people _selling_ shotguns might recommend
them...

~~~
cheald
The primary line of reasoning is that a buckshot shell is going to pack more
force than a handgun (12-gauge #00 buckshot is 1.2k-3k ft/lbs of force spread
out over 9 pellets, depending on the shell and weapon versus ~500 ft/lbs of
force from a .40 handgun round), but because it's spread out over multiple
pellets, it will be more easily stopped or slowed by walls or other
obstructions, reducing the chances of a round penetrating a wall and harming a
bystander. Additionally, a shotgun requires far less precise aiming to operate
effectively, specifically because of the physics of it being a short-range
weapon. Since most people don't have training in precisely aiming and firing
guns in high-stress situations, a weapon that requires less precision to use
effectively is going to be much more useful if you ever did find yourself in a
situation that you needed to use it.

A shorter barrel would obviously be more maneuverable, but shotguns must have
a minimum barrel length of 18" by law, specifically in order to prevent them
from being easily concealed.

~~~
chrisbennet
Try shooting a shotgun at the distance you would indoors and you will be
surprised I think. The pellets only spread out about 1" per 3-5 ft. Shooting
across a room and hitting something is still going to require some precision.

~~~
sarvinc
Funny story; when I was in the Army we had shortened Remington 870s used for
breaching. One of my friends was trying to convince everyone that the "shorty"
would be ineffective when used in a hanger because of the potential distance
between target and assaulter. Another friend offered to help test the theory
out by being the one behind the shotgun. It turns out that the shotgun doesn't
do much when shortened but there is a strong physical reaction that occurs
when someone fires one in your direction.

------
sethbannon
The comments on the TC piece are quite disturbing, even by Internet comment
standards.

~~~
jusben1369
Seriously. What the heck happened to TC? It was never the high point of debate
on the web but it's struggling to rank much above local trashy mag comments.
And so much for the quality improvement we'd receive when people had to use
their real identities. Is the problem AOL piping a lot of traffic into their
stories?

------
JohnFromBuffalo
I saw this coming from a mile away as soon as I saw the map go up yesterday. I
think the real debate is mental health and deeper checks on those who are at
higher risk of violence in the mental health community. The stigma also needs
to be removed from our culture of such diseases so we as a culture can move
beyond the gun debate and concentrate on those who lash out with violence. As
a gun owner, I am both for stricter controls but its obvious that gun control
only affects those who are legally looking to buy guns .. not the violent
offenders in our culture.

------
FourthProtocol
If we're going to play like kids anyways, then I think more interesting would
be a map showing journalists with gun permits.

------
crazygringo
The thing that bothers me most is that people's addresses are a matter of
public record, period. It's one thing to know someone has a gun license, or
donated money to a political candidate, or owns a domain name.

It's another thing to reveal where they live. Sometimes people move for a good
reason, and don't want someone else to be able to find them. (Abuse cases,
etc.)

Other countries solve this by having ID numbers -- American SSN's are the
closest. Those can be used in official documents, etc. Whereas in the US,
domain names and other licenses are assigned to someone with a particular
name, at a particular address, since SSN's aren't supposed to be used as
general-purpose ID numbers, and what other option do you have?

------
andrewdubinsky
Can I get added to the list of gun owners please?

Make a note that I am an expert marksman and I shoot to kill.

Also, please add that I don't own anything worth trading your life for.

~~~
chez17
The fact that you get excited about killing another human shows you are not
qualified to own a gun.

~~~
cema
Actually, it does not.

------
rikacomet
err... eye for an eye, leaves the whole world blind, Anyone remembers that?

this exposes both groups to a lot of risk, really a bad call I would say. A
criminal can use the info to take revenge on a media personnel, or
rob/hurt/murder/rape someone without a gun.

~~~
jetti
"err... eye for an eye, leaves the whole world blind, Anyone remembers that?"

It seems people have taken on a more Parker Brothers attitude: "Sorry! You get
me I get you back".

"A criminal can use the info to take revenge on a media personnel, or
rob/hurt/murder/rape someone without a gun."

Just because somebody isn't on that map doesn't mean they don't have a gun.
All it means is that they just don't legally own a gun.

------
afterburner
Well, fear probably increases gun ownership, so not a bad move from the pro-
gun side...

------
norswap
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

