Yes, the only reason is that it's public record. It exposes people who have firearms of value in their home, Gun owners protect their firearms with safes, locks and the firearm themselves. It also exposes people who don't have proper protection for their home. People letting their mail and newspapers pile up while out of town a greater risk to attract thieves.

News needs to butt out of personal info. Now you think I should let the world, including criminals looking for firearms that I have one and where they can get one. Or, let them know who DOES NOT have a firearm and is safer to break into. NEWS is supposed to be about news, not personal info.

Media no, but do believe one should have to register all guns with local police. You get or renew your license,
you register your guns.
Won't solve all issues but at least officers/ firefighters aren't walking into a situation "blind".

Only if car registrations, tax returns, and medicare records are also made public information.

This incident demonstrates why gun registration and licensing should not be required for basic hand gun, rifles and shotguns. Sure go ahead and specially license machine guns, very high capacity clips and some especially dangerous weapons capable of mass murder, but people have a right to bear arms and defend themselves and many current laws are more than just infringing upon those rights, they are trampling upon those rights.

And then publish the addresses of Journalists whom points of view you do not agree with so you can go over their house and discuss it with them. Never happen. Cynthia, you DO have to register all guns you own. Obviously you do not own one.

As one of the only G20 countries that allow their citizens to possess and carry firearms, there is the ongoing belief the local law enforcement is incapable of performing peacetime duties for their denizens. Then I ask Barbara, Cynthia, Frosty and everyone else, why do you call 911 or first-responders when an emergency happens? The Second Amendment was instituted when the country was in its infancy, and there is no solid concept of law enforcement for all lands. Currently, we have few (if any) regions in the United States in which laws cannot be enforced immediately. The Third Amendment prevents the forced housing of soldiers, but that hasn't happened in close to 350 years. The Second Amendment is the standing argument for those whom to posses firearms to stand behind when their pastime has the potential to do so much harm to society.

And as for Pat, I have yet to witness when car registrations, tax returns, and medicare records have murdered children. When that happens, I will stand corrected.

Al, you are devolving this conversation into one about gun control; that was not the question that was asked.

The question is: are we and our neighbors safer if a list of (alleged) gun owners is published or not? Or, are we, and our neighbors, in more danger?

I humbly suggest that we stick to the topic at hand. Else, we'll be writing a book on gun control pro's and con's. The issue here is about a clear and present danger to us and our community - are we safer knowing there guns are (or could be), or are we inviting crime with open arms" (pardon the pun)

there == where (in my above paragraph; poor editing) ;-)

I agree with Frosty, GB, and Cynthia - publicizing who gun owners are could indeed give criminals a "roadmap". Criminals should remain uncertain as to whom they will face in a home invasion. Police officers should not.

What I think is important, is that parents, at the risk of sounding paranoid to their kids, should pro-actively instruct children on what to say if a peer wants to show them a gun of any sort. Or how to respond to any potentially risky suggestion. My advice to parents is to apply "universal precautions" when instructing children on visits with acquaintances.

Well, I just feel that when one is going through the parenting years, it is all too easy to suppress a protective instinct for fear of making our children overly fearful. Or that we will appear in their eyes to be unjustly critical of others. So - by addressing potential scenarios - to be applied when with any and all friends should the need arise - then we can give them the conversational skills to avoid a bad situation.

Julie
A friend of mine, someone whom I consider an excellent mother, will also role play potentially dangerous scenarios, combining advice given verbally, (the usual parental lectures) with acting out different situations with her and her daughters even reversing roles, making it easier for them to draw upon some actuall experience in saying "no" to strangers, or their friends or even helping others in tight situations.
You sound like you are on top of the situation. Good on you.

There is a large and growing amount of personal information about all of us being gathered, stored, analyzed and used for various purposes by government agencies as well as private companies -- medical records, tax information, use of the internet, real estate ownership, political contributions, criminal records, credit card purchases just to list a few. All of it has the potential to adversely affect our privacy, and therefore all such information should be confidential unless there is a clear purpose and public benefit to making it available to anyone who asks. The disclosure of political contributions is an example of a legitimate public purpose. The second requirement should be that the potential for public disclosure be known to those who willingly add their information to that database.

I do not see any public purpose and benefit to making the names and addresses of licensed gun owners available, and therefore my answer to the headline question is "No". I do not know if gun owners in New York were made aware that the personal information they submitted for their licence will be public, but they know it now.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

@ Charlie - YES! I hate wading thru privacy policies on the net - but I do (usually ;- because some of them - Jeesh - should be labeled "privacy violation policies"!

@ Michael - That's cool - the parent who played the "reverse roles" - that is anexcellent educational tool. That said - sad experience has taught me - that - it is better to play it safe than sorry in not allowing our kids, even in high school, to visit with friends you haven't "fully vetted" first. However, pardon the pun, the "shotgun" approach of publishing lists of gun-owners tells one next to nothing!

It appears that the people who mostly what exposure to people who own firearms are the politicians who refuse to release their birth records and financial records. Fear the government that fears its people...

Let's strip this argument to its basics.
People who live in a neighborhood have the right to know if there are homes nearby where dangerous weapons are kept. Just as they have the right to know if there are dangerous criminals (sex offenders?) living near by.
It could also be just another tool for a buyer to use to decide if they want to buy a home in a heavily armed area. Perhaps insurance rates in such areas could be raised, too.
Take this to its logical conclusion.

Lessismore- Houses with pools are mapped on real estate and other sites- it's easily obtainable info. They're also considered in tax records. There are also laws requiring swimming pool owners to fence or otherwise block entrance to their pools. Insurance rates are higher on houses with pools.
But your analogies about pools and drugs are specious.
Guns have only one purpose. They are made to harm other beings. Period. Swimming pools and drugs have legitimate, non-harmful and beneficial uses as well.

While I respect the good nature of where you are coming from if you support this idea, I would ask folks who are in favor of this concept to please consider that you may well be on Step 1 of a road that will end with "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time...". Is it, perhaps, at all possible that you may not have thought the entire scenario through? What, precisely, do you wish to accomplish by publishing those names on an easy-to-find map?

Do you want to shame those who are legally licensed (which, by the way, is different than those who actually own a gun, or those who own one but don't keep it at home) into giving up their licenses? Is that meant to make our neighborhoods safer? What, EXACTLY, is the plan here? Because there won't be an immediate effect; people will need to consider whether or not to disarm as a result of the publication or, perhaps, to arm-up... such as has happened in the three weeks since the shootings, mostly as a result of threats to take guns away, by the way. It has had the opposite effect, indeed.

(1 of 2)

No. Gun owners should not be singled out if they have not broken any laws. I don't know which of my neighbors have guns and I don't care. It would be more relevant to know if they have mental health issues. I worry more that someone driving while using a cell phone will kill me.

Why treat legal gun owners like criminals?

Adama Lanza broke myriad gun laws as Connecticut has some of the strongest gun laws in the country. More laws is NOT the answer. Improvements in dealing with the mentally ill is.
Blaming the guns is like blaming the fork and spoon for making Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell fat. Think about that.

Michael, my last remarks were simply stated as a point of clarification for parents of high schoolers. We could all take a page from you and the friend you referenced.

With his last sarcastic, aserbic comment, Steven has demonstrated that he is the moron. He is either blind to the sage comments legal gun owners are making, or he is a narcissist who likes to hear himself in this thread.

If he, and his fellow CNN-loving liberals really knew what they were talking about, they would realize that exposing sane, contiousious and LEGAL gun owners who RESPECT their responsibility, is leading us down a
slippery dangerous slope that can have dire consequence, except that narcissist Michael can't or won't see just to prove his ridiculous opinions. Wise up Michael, along with your ultra liberal followers

Sorry, I meant to say Steven, the narcissist

@Steven Your logic is faulty at best. Someone could just as easily search where you work, your work hours.. fairly public information and post a Google map to your house. ALSO public information-- along with a note.. Wife is home alone from 4-9.. 3 karat diamond, no protection... Tell me. just because i CAN access that information, does that mean I should. Based on what you just told me using public tax records and your own post about your city, I can give you your own address and phone number in less than two minutes. . Just because I CAN. does that mean I SHOULD or should I use some ethics and behave responsibly?

LOL Not an alias in the sense that you mean. I use this name on every site for which I write. My name is Robbi Drake. It's my pleasure to meet you Steven. My point is this.. A map of those with guns in a given neighborhood is also a map to those who do not have guns.. In outing your neighbors with a gun license, you also out those who are 95 years old and have no protection.. essentially put up a sign saying please murder my grandmother or rape my daughter. The Journal News was not seeking to educate, they were seeking to give fifteen minutes of fame to a newspaper which is in no way journalistic and in every respect reminiscent of the National Enquirer. They waded through the blood of babies and trod on their bodies to obtain a newsworthy bit of hype..ANYONE--Libertarian, Democrat or Republican who doesn't decry behavior like that--and defend the rights of others to do as the constitution promises-- is not worth the air they breathe. SOME people do not use guns wisely.. by an large criminals.. SOME people--such as your self.. do not use their freedom of speech wisely, but my personal feelings aside.. I am always going to defend your right to speak freely even if what you say doesn't make any sense. :)

You are right, Steve, he DOES sort of sound like me, huh? Unfortunatly for you, you are seeing ghosts. I agree with Kai's comments 100%...but he is not me masquerading as someone else. Admittedly, I don't even know how to change identities on this site. (sorry, just not technologically advanced as you may think I am, and I only own one computer)
Amazing as it sounds...there are other folks who consider your constant worthless snark as adding no value to any serious conversation.
Kai...you speak the truth. Stay with it man. However, he will bury you with invective and name calling until you just have to ignore him. He sort of has a medical condition that I've seen in my life. It's a form of "Recto-Orificeal" Tourette's syndrome. He can't help spasmotically blurting out random insults, even if they don't pertain to the topic at hand, just to get his name wedged in between other bloggers who are trying to have a serious conversation. Imagine a 2 year old that needs to go potty, but you're on the phone. Yeah...like that.

LOL. @ Both of you. I see now the root of what Steven was saying by "a new identity".. I am not another new identity for someone else.. Robbi in this case, is not a he--it's a she. and while I have the technical skill to BE another person, what I lack is the motivation to play that kind of game.

LadyMacbeth. (Robbi)
Yes, publishing the addresses of gun owners is a BRILLIANT idea, don't you think?
That way, those WITHOUT guns would be more easily identified. The up side, is that those without guns are more likely to be on the left side of the political spectrum. So...

What do they say? " A Democrat is just a person who hasnt been mugged yet"?
With every break in, home invasion, rape, murder and armed robbery, you will get a new convert to the "cult of guns"...as in, "Gosh, I sure wish I had one of those dang guns when that guy broke into my house instead of this Nerf bat". Lessons are learned about human nature way too late for them to be effective, I'm afraid.
Tell you what libs....you just keep NOT protecting yourself. Ok? Pat yourself on your backs about how morally superior you are to those who chose self defense. Lay yourselves down on the alter self congratulatory holier-than-thou-ism, and show the world how "tolerant" (oh! And dont forget "smarter"!) you are than us. ...Go ahead. I'm ok with that. Oh? What? You want me to do the same?
Uhh...No.

I’m personally tired of the current administration using schoolyard bullying tactics. This administration encourages bigotry and bullying and "outing" others, mistreating or publicly humiliating one group by another.What is the difference between this and any other form of bigotry?
You cannot manage people by shaming them or humiliating them. We tried that on the Native Americans. Most of them died fighting it and the same will happen here.
The group which is being mistreated will become frustrated and annoyed and when the unthinkable happens-- and it will-- the group who pushed and promoted the violence will gasp in shock and smugly say, I knew those people couldn't be trusted. I note that the Democrat who cannot force his way of thinking upon another person, cannot control their anger and speech and keep that speech civil and courteous .That is why I am no longer a democrat. The people with whom I discuss gun control have no argument and reduce the debate to a personal attack. LOL on the smarter than we--I am a Republican with a multiple high IQ association memberships and I believe that the average liberal is so accustomed to having someone else think FOR them,--so unaccustomed to examining and investigating and searching for their own truth--so immured in someone else’s reality, that even if they DO have a remotely competent IQ, it's effectively wasted because it lies as dormant as a frog in wintertime..

Just in case someone on here decides to "out" MA gun owners:

from MGL (Mass General Laws):

" Chapter 66, Section 10: The executive director of the criminal history systems board, the criminal history systems board and its agents, servants, and attorneys including the keeper of the records of the firearms records bureau of said department, or any licensing authority, as defined by chapter one hundred and forty shall not disclose any records divulging or tending to divulge the names and addresses of persons who own or possess firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns and ammunition therefor, as defined in said chapter one hundred and forty and names and addresses of persons licensed to carry and/or possess the same to any person, firm, corporation, entity or agency except criminal justice agencies as defined in chapter six and except to the extent such information relates solely to the person making the request and is necessary to the official interests of the entity making the request."

I know, shocking, that the State House passed somegthing that makes sense. More shocking when you consider MA has some of the toughest gun laws in the US & does their level best to make the licensing process as cumbersome & costly as possible. Now if they would just pass the "castle" law that's been brought up for years but can't seem to get passed.

President Obama's kids school has armed guards , i suggest all schools do the same ! We have the second ammendment 4 a reason ,to protect what we hold dear! Lets use it ! Makes you wonder if even 1 of the teachers in Sandy hook was armed , maybe a few lives could have been saved!

To Michael and Lady Macbeth, thank you for your comments - they hold considerable weight, are based in sound logic, and best of all....silence from Steven Caravata. From a quick Google search, he's gone to the Waltham Patch. Maybe his Facebook profile may shed some light on his views or persona...but who really cares!

LGT...thank you for posting one piece of the MGLs that is rooted in sound legislation. At least they got that right.

The USA needs to enforce the laws on the books, new laws are not necessary, although we could revisit the ban on assault weapons. What home owner needs that for protection? The question is rhetorical.

When in grad school, we had to choose a position and defend it. My group was mostly gun owners. Although I have learned to shoot, I am not. I decided to stand with the gun owners- and it opened my eyes to the sheer number of laws on the books that were not being enforced.

So while criminals have guns- I believe the bigger threat is lack of parity in mental health treatment. As a nation we are far behind in proper diagnosis and treatment.
In the CT scenario, had the mother not had the gun available, she might not be dead and all of that tragedy might have been avoided.

Agree with the Doc and LCT. The UN is getting more and more traction in this nations affairs, and it us WE who are allowing that to happen. Obama actually asked for UN observers to participate in voter intimidation investigations here in the US! I was so angry I almost popped a vein. But this is the direction this administration will take us, and if he is succeeded in 2016 by another Dem?...it... is...all...over.

Here's what I think about the UN: It is a very much needed organization to rally for human rights where egregious wrongs in various war-torn countries have taken place. However, no matter how well intentioned an original resolution or rule may be, leave it to subsequent people to twist and manipulate it into something never originally intended. The US should be very wary of entering pacts with the UN, IMNSHO.

Julie-
Will you marry me?
Probably more serious than I realize-
Mike

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Dr. Anderson. Who would of thought we would be in such a state. I do not consider my self Poor, just not as wealthy as most. However, it would never enter into my mind to take from my hard working neighbor that which did not belong to me or not what I have not earned. Socialism also takes you dignity, self worth, and leaves you with nothing not even hope.

Well said MC. Solid reasoning. Which means it will promptly be ignored by those who want to do the re-distributing...

You left wing fellers appear to be pre-occupied with my schedule and when I post. Seems its you guys that are sweet on me.
Hey, Binder woman,...look up here...
My eyes are up here...stop looking at my crotch, will ya? Look up here....

“Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law-abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

“No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

“Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.”

Unfortunately, it is all so true. The generation of today, have absolutely no idea what they are voting for. Only too quickly does the Dictator come. You wake up only when it is too late. Age has its advantages. I was a Democrat in my twenties. All for the social programs, etc. By the time I was in my forties, I began to see a trend of full government take over of the way we live. Today, in my sixties, I am a Republican. I do not want to have what I worked for to be taken and given to some yuppie who has decided he doesn't have to work The Government will provide. As Jefferson said, "If a Government is big enough to give you everything you want, it's big enough to take everything you have." I am for smaller government and less interference. When my generation is gone, so will the memories of WWII be gone. History is being rewritten as we speak. No longer are the children in school being taught we are a Republic. Everyone gets a trophy at the end of the season in sports. When do we teach our children sportsmanship and to loose gracefully? When is it alright to protect yourself from the breakin? I do not want to be a number on some report at the end of the year for murders committed either up or down from the last report. Keep your guns. I'm keeping mine.

Folks the information is already public. The newspaper just exercised the right to access public information.

I assume that there is a public list of all the people who are on welfare. Should the newspaper publish that list? Those people do more harm to me than any legal gun owner ever did.

How about a public list of people who depend on the Patch for their news?

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Rev. That is the best extension of this "go public" argument love it

The patch e-mail new is concerned how many people exercise their 2nd amendment rights while they leave the medial alone who exploit the 1st amendment.

For instance, according to Retired Colonel Dave Grossman and Gloria DeGaetano, who wrote the book “Stop Teaching our Kids to Kill,” there have been over (5,000) five thousands studies showing a causal relationship that TV and media cause violence. This book was written in 1999 and the studies have been conducted since the early 1950’s— http://www.killology.com/new_media_vio.htm

Furthermore, shortly before the Connecticut massacre, the state considered passing an involuntary outpatient treatment law which would forcibly committed the mentally ill murderer. However, ACLU protested and the law failed. His mother, the teachers and the children would have been alive today if the ACLU didn’t protest. Just like the Woburn Patch publishing the firearms information on its web paper, the ACLU knew the press would blame the NRA and the licenses firearm public.

Anyway, the President and Patch have left this information out of the public decision. Was it because the president received millions of dollars from Hollywood for his presidential campaign and the 15 million tax break for Hollywood; and the tax increase for the working people weren’t enough? How much advertising or donations does Hollywood give the Patch newspaper through grant money to pay for their silence; and to publish firearm licenses information?