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.
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?
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.
> 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!)
>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?
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.
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...
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.
Not really an authority on this issue, but regardless of the feelings of their current members, it's really not a battle worth fighting. The amount of financial and political capital required is staggering.
That said, at the time, the NRA supported the both the laws that effectively ban machine guns. The NRA's stance on gun control, as well as what the NRA itself stands for has changed throughout its history.
To possess an "Assault Rifle" in the US you need to have a Type 6 or Type 7 Federal Firearms License. You have to apply to the ATF and the State Department, with a background investigation done by the FBI. You undergo yearly inspections of inventory and records by a federal or designated state agent. The location at which the firearm is stored must be approved at the federal, state, and county level. Pretty much the only people who bother to go through all this are the folks who manufature them for the military.
What most people confusingly label "assault rifles", AR-15s, are not fully automatic or even select fire. Many states even ban you from hunting with them because the cartridges are too small to mortally wound animals with a single shot.
In the spirit of "using words correctly", assault rifles are incredibly tightly regulated by the US federal government and various states. Assault rifles are fully automatic weapons (technically select-fire) and have not been legally manufactured for sale since 1986 and require a special federal permit. The rifle used by the person in Connecticut was not an assault rifle, but is categorized as an "assault weapon" by the government (essentially a crippled version of an assault rifle or, as others put it, a scary looking version of a basic semiautomatic rifle).
The short answer is yes, assault rifles are on a separate registry, but NY states appears to essentially ban both assault rifles and assault weapons.
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.
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.
"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.
What's more, this may well provide data for would-be gun thieves to use to acquire illegal weapons.
Now that they have a convenient list, they can stake out these locations, wait for the residents to leave, and break in to begin their search for guns they know will be inside.
Ok, ignoring the fact that this is a map of permits, you do realize that there are different kinds of permits, right? Someone's permit could be for business, which means the handgun,if they even have one, may not even be at the house. Or worse, it's conceal and carry, which means if the owner comes home when the burglar is vainly trying to find the gun, that burglar is in trouble.
I know burglars may be low lifes, but they're also kind of lazy. The time it would take to thoroughly research a gun burglary could be sent going to another state and buying legal guns by the bundle.
Ok, ignoring the fact that this is a map of permits
Why would you ignore that this is a map? That's the point - the data is now conveniently visualized as a map...
Someone's permit could be for business, which means the handgun,if they even have one, may not even be at the house.
True. And your argument would be further strengthened if you pointed out that some of these are 5-year permits and some are lifetime permits. So, many of these individuals may have sold their guns, died, moved out of state, etc.
Or worse, it's conceal and carry
CCW permits are very, very difficult to get in New York.
I know burglars may be low lifes, but they're also kind of lazy. The time it would take to thoroughly research a gun burglary could be sent going to another state and buying legal guns by the bundle.
I have no idea how likely it is that criminals would use this data, only that it's now much more convenient for them to do so.
Obviously non-felons have a much easier time getting guns. People who steal guns or buy illegal guns usually aren't allowed to buy them, most likely because they are already felons.
- I said "ignoring the fact that this is a map of permits" because you seemed to be under the impression that this was a map of guns. Or even a map of gun owners. It is neither. You can get a license and not own a gun.
- As you said, CCW is hard to get in NY, and many other states that are not shall-issue. In fact, to get a CCW permit in such a state, you often need political or business connections, which is why an accounting of who gets these favors is sometimes called for.
- I have no idea how likely it is that criminals would use this data, only that it's now much more convenient for them to do so.
Hello, you have just used the line of reasoning used by virtually every public information officer concerning virtually every type of public record: We don't know exactly how criminals will use it or have any empirical evidence showing that they systematically use such information, but just to be safe, we will not release this information
David Simon, a former cops reporter and creator of The Wire, wrote an excellent piece a few years ago about how the police hiding public records under the guise of safety helped cover-up a police officer's incompetence:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02...
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
From what I've gathered from various friends and acquaintances working in law enforcement and criminal justice, the vast majority of criminals are really not the kind of intelligent folks who would do such research. That's why they're criminals. The sophisticated type you see in television is very rare.
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.
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?
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.
Security by obscurity refers to a principle where a system designer attempts to use secrecy of design and implementation to provide security. The key word is secrecy.
That does not fit the definition here. The information of registered gun owners is already public. In other words, it is not secret. What is questioned is this: who will benefit more from having the information available via an interactive map? Regular citizens who don't break into others' houses don't have much to fear anyway. On the other hand, those who are interested in stealing guns and selling them on the black market now have a wonderful new tool at their disposal.
Let me give a more specific example. I'm an avid biker, and have assembled and traded many bikes. One thing us bikers do when we sell our used bikes to others is that we never meet them at our home. Rather, we agree on a neutral place, like a gas station. You know why? Because if the buyer knows where we live, then there's the risk that they will break into our home and steal our bikes. This is actually something that happens on a fairly regular basis, mostly to those who are not experienced sellers.
Exact same concern applies here. Bikes are registered too, but you don't see an interactive map of registered bikers, do you? As such, the only conclusion we can reach here is that this newspaper is simply fueling the gun scare.
I would actually argue that this is more of a case of security theater. The reason is this: we don't need to fear guns. The only thing we need to fear is crazy people who have guns. And that's a relatively easy problem to address: require thorough mental and background checks for anyone who wants to buy a gun. I guarantee that that would actually make us safer, rather than giving us the illusion of safety (therefore making us less safe).
> The only thing we need to fear is crazy people who have guns. And that's a relatively easy problem to address: require thorough mental and background checks for anyone who wants to buy a gun.
This statement contains at least two problematic assumptions:
1) Only people who have committed violent crimes in the past will commit them in the future. (see: "background checks")
2) People who are mentally ill are inherently dangerous, or at the very least "could be" (see: "mental checks", "crazy people")
The problem with (1) is that a background check will not reveal very much for most folks. Sure, if you've got a lifetime of criminal mischief, a felony or two, that will show up. But that time you argued with someone and threw a brick through their window, but the judge let you off with a "public disturbance" - not gonna show up. For the vast majority of the country, a background report would not be a useful or helpful qualifier. For the worst of the worst, we can't pretend a black market on guns doesn't exist, so it would not help there, either.
The problem with (2) is that you have now decided to deny what is otherwise a fundamental right, guaranteed in (an amendment to) the Constitution to all citizens of legal age. Your logic for stripping a large number of citizens of this right is that some of them might do bad things with it. There is no clinical diagnosis for "is likely to go apeshit and shoot someone" - in fact even among schizophrenics there's no clear indicator of "violent tendencies", let alone an actual predictor.
Another problem with (2) is that you assume that mental health is constant throughout a lifetime. If I'm 18 and go in for a comprehensive mental status evaluation, I may come out just fine and start buying guns. But what happens if I present as Bipolar at 30? Schizophrenic at 40? Do you get to come and take away all my guns at that point? Should that be the duty of a psychiatrist - to determine who is allowed to own weapons? What if the psychiatrist gets it wrong, are they liable? Even if we assume somehow a psychiatrist was able to make that diagnosis and be right 99% of the time, you've now introduced a fairly major reason NOT to seek mental health care - they may take away your guns (or prevent you from getting one).
Sadly, throwing out "it's only crazy people with guns" is a somewhat disingenuous statement. Most gun homicides in the US are committed criminal-on-criminal, or criminal-on-victim. Very few are acts of "a crazy person", and even in those cases very few have ever been diagnosed with or presented psychotic symptoms prior to the commission of a gun-related homicide.
I therefore reject your guarantee that it would "actually make us safer". I also am pretty sure it would run afoul of ADA, and the 2nd Amendment, though that's a question for expensive lawyers.
From a 'security' perspective, this seems like an objectively good thing to me. If having this data publicly available is a good thing, then this map is a good thing - the more exposure, the better. If it's a bad thing, then the higher exposure resulting from this makes it more likely that a change in policy will happen.
The status quo (prior to the publication of this map) was that the information is publicly available but only a few people were aware of it. I can't imagine any argument for that being the optimal situation.
>From a 'security' perspective, this seems like an objectively good thing to me. ... The status quo (prior to the publication of this map) was that the information is publicly available but only a few people were aware of it. I can't imagine any argument for that being the optimal situation.
You can have something which is worse than the status quo even when the status quo is not optimal. In particular, exacerbating a problem in the hope that it spurs people to address it is only a positive if it spurs people to address it. If not, you've only enlarged the scope of the problem.
Sure, but the criminal element isn't exactly known for its high IQ. By making it easily accessible, you are inviting abuse and ultimately, the political will to make that public information private.
On top of everything, the law of unintended consequences is at play here. I wouldn't worry about somebody breaking in to steal your gun ... I would worry about the neighbor who doesn't show up on the map. I can rob him without worrying about being shot.
I would be worry about the neighbor who doesn't have someone collect his mail when he's on vacation. First rule of self-defense: try to avoid the situation in the first place.
You're making a lot of assumptions.. "Sure, but the criminal element isn't exactly known for its high IQ." ... considering the revenue size of most types of crime there are plenty of smart criminals, and crime organizations that use computation to calculate, and mitigate risk.
"I would worry about the neighbor who doesn't show up on the map. I can rob him without worrying about being shot." Considering gun ownership rate of 50% in the u.s. and per capita rate of near 90%.. Most houses have guns independent of registration, and lot have 2. So in general a criminal must assume there is a gun in the house.. Therefor most criminals have 2 main factors when picking a house to rob.. 1. Is anyone home 2. Is there a dog
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.
> 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.
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?)
>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).
Sorry, but the onus is on you to prove, or at least argue, that burglars use this information to raid houses at a higher rate than they would otherwise do so. This is how the law and public records work. Keep in mind using the "it puts people at risk" argument is basically the stock argument for preventing the disclosure of many, many types of public records.
But since we're talking hypotheticals, my main point is this: you've imagined a savvy burglar who apparently has no easier means of getting firearms than to burglar a home. That being the case, this burglar has to weigh a number of specific factors, including the possibility that said home may not actually have a handgun (nevemrind whether it's easy to find).
At what point does the burglar make his/her burglary decisions based on other factors: such as, how obvious it is that someone is home, and how rich that person is (easily judged by looking at the home or consulting business/assessor records)?
67 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 141 ms ] threadThings like this make people think that anyone who owns a gun might just walk into a crowded place and start shooting.
For instance:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!)
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?
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
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Ac...
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...
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.
That said, at the time, the NRA supported the both the laws that effectively ban machine guns. The NRA's stance on gun control, as well as what the NRA itself stands for has changed throughout its history.
What most people confusingly label "assault rifles", AR-15s, are not fully automatic or even select fire. Many states even ban you from hunting with them because the cartridges are too small to mortally wound animals with a single shot.
The short answer is yes, assault rifles are on a separate registry, but NY states appears to essentially ban both assault rifles and assault weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York
Now that they have a convenient list, they can stake out these locations, wait for the residents to leave, and break in to begin their search for guns they know will be inside.
I know burglars may be low lifes, but they're also kind of lazy. The time it would take to thoroughly research a gun burglary could be sent going to another state and buying legal guns by the bundle.
Why would you ignore that this is a map? That's the point - the data is now conveniently visualized as a map...
Someone's permit could be for business, which means the handgun,if they even have one, may not even be at the house.
True. And your argument would be further strengthened if you pointed out that some of these are 5-year permits and some are lifetime permits. So, many of these individuals may have sold their guns, died, moved out of state, etc.
Or worse, it's conceal and carry
CCW permits are very, very difficult to get in New York.
I know burglars may be low lifes, but they're also kind of lazy. The time it would take to thoroughly research a gun burglary could be sent going to another state and buying legal guns by the bundle.
I have no idea how likely it is that criminals would use this data, only that it's now much more convenient for them to do so.
Obviously non-felons have a much easier time getting guns. People who steal guns or buy illegal guns usually aren't allowed to buy them, most likely because they are already felons.
- As you said, CCW is hard to get in NY, and many other states that are not shall-issue. In fact, to get a CCW permit in such a state, you often need political or business connections, which is why an accounting of who gets these favors is sometimes called for.
- I have no idea how likely it is that criminals would use this data, only that it's now much more convenient for them to do so.
Hello, you have just used the line of reasoning used by virtually every public information officer concerning virtually every type of public record: We don't know exactly how criminals will use it or have any empirical evidence showing that they systematically use such information, but just to be safe, we will not release this information
David Simon, a former cops reporter and creator of The Wire, wrote an excellent piece a few years ago about how the police hiding public records under the guise of safety helped cover-up a police officer's incompetence: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02...
EDIT: Well that didn't take long to acquire a silent Reddit-style "independent-thought downvote."
1) Is the house occupied? 2) Are the occupants armed?
Providing an answer to the second question only helps the criminal by letting them know that they can perform an armed robbery with no resistance.
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.
That's security by obscurity. So not security.
That does not fit the definition here. The information of registered gun owners is already public. In other words, it is not secret. What is questioned is this: who will benefit more from having the information available via an interactive map? Regular citizens who don't break into others' houses don't have much to fear anyway. On the other hand, those who are interested in stealing guns and selling them on the black market now have a wonderful new tool at their disposal.
Let me give a more specific example. I'm an avid biker, and have assembled and traded many bikes. One thing us bikers do when we sell our used bikes to others is that we never meet them at our home. Rather, we agree on a neutral place, like a gas station. You know why? Because if the buyer knows where we live, then there's the risk that they will break into our home and steal our bikes. This is actually something that happens on a fairly regular basis, mostly to those who are not experienced sellers.
Exact same concern applies here. Bikes are registered too, but you don't see an interactive map of registered bikers, do you? As such, the only conclusion we can reach here is that this newspaper is simply fueling the gun scare.
I would actually argue that this is more of a case of security theater. The reason is this: we don't need to fear guns. The only thing we need to fear is crazy people who have guns. And that's a relatively easy problem to address: require thorough mental and background checks for anyone who wants to buy a gun. I guarantee that that would actually make us safer, rather than giving us the illusion of safety (therefore making us less safe).
This statement contains at least two problematic assumptions: 1) Only people who have committed violent crimes in the past will commit them in the future. (see: "background checks") 2) People who are mentally ill are inherently dangerous, or at the very least "could be" (see: "mental checks", "crazy people")
The problem with (1) is that a background check will not reveal very much for most folks. Sure, if you've got a lifetime of criminal mischief, a felony or two, that will show up. But that time you argued with someone and threw a brick through their window, but the judge let you off with a "public disturbance" - not gonna show up. For the vast majority of the country, a background report would not be a useful or helpful qualifier. For the worst of the worst, we can't pretend a black market on guns doesn't exist, so it would not help there, either.
The problem with (2) is that you have now decided to deny what is otherwise a fundamental right, guaranteed in (an amendment to) the Constitution to all citizens of legal age. Your logic for stripping a large number of citizens of this right is that some of them might do bad things with it. There is no clinical diagnosis for "is likely to go apeshit and shoot someone" - in fact even among schizophrenics there's no clear indicator of "violent tendencies", let alone an actual predictor.
Another problem with (2) is that you assume that mental health is constant throughout a lifetime. If I'm 18 and go in for a comprehensive mental status evaluation, I may come out just fine and start buying guns. But what happens if I present as Bipolar at 30? Schizophrenic at 40? Do you get to come and take away all my guns at that point? Should that be the duty of a psychiatrist - to determine who is allowed to own weapons? What if the psychiatrist gets it wrong, are they liable? Even if we assume somehow a psychiatrist was able to make that diagnosis and be right 99% of the time, you've now introduced a fairly major reason NOT to seek mental health care - they may take away your guns (or prevent you from getting one).
Sadly, throwing out "it's only crazy people with guns" is a somewhat disingenuous statement. Most gun homicides in the US are committed criminal-on-criminal, or criminal-on-victim. Very few are acts of "a crazy person", and even in those cases very few have ever been diagnosed with or presented psychotic symptoms prior to the commission of a gun-related homicide.
I therefore reject your guarantee that it would "actually make us safer". I also am pretty sure it would run afoul of ADA, and the 2nd Amendment, though that's a question for expensive lawyers.
The status quo (prior to the publication of this map) was that the information is publicly available but only a few people were aware of it. I can't imagine any argument for that being the optimal situation.
You can have something which is worse than the status quo even when the status quo is not optimal. In particular, exacerbating a problem in the hope that it spurs people to address it is only a positive if it spurs people to address it. If not, you've only enlarged the scope of the problem.
On top of everything, the law of unintended consequences is at play here. I wouldn't worry about somebody breaking in to steal your gun ... I would worry about the neighbor who doesn't show up on the map. I can rob him without worrying about being shot.
Just think of how dumb that is.
You might as well argue to publish all government data in Klingon, it will make the life of dumb criminals even harder.
Not really. The data isn't online. If anything, I'm arguing for keeping it analog?
"I would worry about the neighbor who doesn't show up on the map. I can rob him without worrying about being shot." Considering gun ownership rate of 50% in the u.s. and per capita rate of near 90%.. Most houses have guns independent of registration, and lot have 2. So in general a criminal must assume there is a gun in the house.. Therefor most criminals have 2 main factors when picking a house to rob.. 1. Is anyone home 2. Is there a dog
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
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.
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?)
That's what this is.
Also, read the OP. 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.
But since we're talking hypotheticals, my main point is this: you've imagined a savvy burglar who apparently has no easier means of getting firearms than to burglar a home. That being the case, this burglar has to weigh a number of specific factors, including the possibility that said home may not actually have a handgun (nevemrind whether it's easy to find).
At what point does the burglar make his/her burglary decisions based on other factors: such as, how obvious it is that someone is home, and how rich that person is (easily judged by looking at the home or consulting business/assessor records)?
Dwight R Worley 23006 139 Ave Springfield Gardens, NY 11413 (718) 527-0832
(718) 527-0832