[K9Grip]

A New York newspaper is under criticism for publishing the names and addresses of local gun owners on Monday.

In a piece titled, "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood," the Journal News requested the names and adresses of local residents who are licensed to own handguns through Freedom of Information Law requests. The paper requested information from Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties. The paper was only given the names and addresses of those who have a license to own a handgun. The paper was denied its requests for the amount and type of guns owned by those who have licenses. Putnam County was still working on the request and has not yet released information to the Journal News.

The article includes an interactive map of Westchester and Rockland counties that allows readers to view those who have a license to own handguns around them.

The article also has an editor's note attached to it describing the type of gun the journalist who wrote the article owns. "Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011," it states.

Some critics felt the Journal News article put people in danger. "Do you fools realize that you also made a map for criminals to use to find homes to rob that have no guns in them to protect themselves? What a bunch of liberal boobs you all are," one commenter wrote on the newspaper's website. Others worried that the names would expose law enforcement officials. "You have judges, policemen, retired policemen, FBI agents — they have permits. Once you allow the public to see where they live, that puts them in harm’s way," Paul Piperato, the Rockland county clerk, told Journal News reporter Worley.

ABC News reached out to the Journal News for a statement. The paper told ABC that its readers "are understandably interested to know about guns in their neighborhoods," after the tragic shooting in Newtown, Conn.

The Journal News is owned by Gannett.



(Thanks for letting all the criminals know who they should and shouldn't rob. Publishing the names and addresses of those who have a legal license to own a gun is total bullshit, they aren't criminals.)

[Nite]

This will come in handy for firemen next time they have a callout

[ices]

Handguns I dont care about, even in strict conditions you can get them.

I do have a problem with military grade weaponry. No civilians should own them by simply walking into a shop and going "ooh that one will do".

[AmericanIllusions]

Originally Posted by ices ↗

Handguns I dont care about, even in strict conditions you can get them.

I do have a problem with military grade weaponry. No civilians should own them by simply walking into a shop and going "ooh that one will do".

Fuck you. You sound like a ****** ass European that still bows to a gotdamn queen and here it is nearly 2013. Evolve.

[BryanXavier]

Military-style guns are for citizens to protect themselves against the military (internal or external). So, I still want the option to buy them myself. No, it's not great. I would like for there to be no need to worry about a future problem with our own military or others, nor a need to worry about people being able to obtain them for nefarious purposes, but we can't see the future, and to deny citizens the ability to obtain assault rifles now for good purposes may lead to an inability to remain free from oppression in the future. So, keep them legal and keep improving the means with which people are able to obtain them with an eye on public safety.

[Froctopus]

No criminal is going to go to the county clerks office and see if the house they are eyeing has a gun owner. This paper just served them that info on a silver platter. Whether they like the gun laws or not these ppl are law abiding citizens and have less privacy protection than criminals and the paper is just exploiting these tragedies for ratings.

[lroy10]

That article legitimately just put legal gun owners lives in danger. Whoever is responsible for it should be fired and if someone is hurt because of that article they should be held liable and prosecuted.

All that said, they just fucked up and over played their hand. Because this now gives credence to what everyone that owns a gun for the right reasons has been saying all along. This really isn't about stopping people from obtaining "Assault Rifles". It is about taking away all guns and the right to protect yourself. You just gave the NRA a leg to stand on and you just turned a group of people who are just as pissed and disappointed with the recent events and the idiots who did these things into the enemy. This is a straight up witch hunt, seriously.

I wish I could shove a rocket right the up the ass of anyone who leans far left or far right and shoot their ass into outer space in opposite directions and watch the entire worlds problems clear up within the time it takes to light damn a match.

[ices]

Originally Posted by AmericanIllusions ↗

Fuck you. You sound like a ****** ass European that still bows to a gotdamn queen and here it is nearly 2013. Evolve.

Evolve?

Oh so now you know I am not American (you utter spastic), you try to hurt my feelings with a Queen insult?

So are you pard'ner, speakyourretardedmin or the like? I am adding you to my ignore list but telling us Euro's to evolve is LMFAOulous! I made a new set of words just for you!

We evolved past the gun debate when lots of children were murdered by guns. I guess you can say..

"We grew up"

YEEEAAAAHHHHHH!

[ices]

Originally Posted by BryanXavier ↗

Military-style guns are for citizens to protect themselves against the military (internal or external). So, I still want the option to buy them myself. No, it's not great. I would like for there to be no need to worry about a future problem with our own military or others, nor a need to worry about people being able to obtain them for nefarious purposes, but we can't see the future, and to deny citizens the ability to obtain assault rifles now for good purposes may lead to an inability to remain free from oppression in the future. So, keep them legal and keep improving the means with which people are able to obtain them with an eye on public safety.

Military style weapons are to protect you from the military?

The same US military that can hunt down and destroy terrorist networks thousands of miles from home?

The same military that has A-10s, military armoured brigades that stretch several miles, hundreds of drones equipped with hellfire missiles, fleets of ships, including aircraft carriers, the biggest most advanced airforce in human history, one of the most battle hardened Marine Corps in the western world outside of the UK and;

-NORAD
-CIA
-NSA
-FBI
-Homeland Defence
-Local law enforcement

Then you take into account the military family tree. I dont think the millions of people associated with the US military would take too kindly to your uprising against its members.

I dont think they would side with mountain crazies who believe the end of the world stops at their doorstep in the forest areas.

I also serioulsy doubt you would last 10 days against a fully trained and experienced military force that like the UK, has not seen a single year go without military action somewhere around the globe against a people;

-Better trained than the average US citizen
-Better equipped than the US civilian
-who have a warrior mentality, unlike the average US civilian
-Better health than the average US civilian
-Has a devout belief in what they're doing

You have NONE of these qualities in your country, it is either trained at a high level (military) or you're thrown into the shit with little training (vietnam) where you lose your humanity and still LOSE.

SO tell me, think your little uprising would get anywhere except a body bag for you and your fellow rebels?

[BryanXavier]

ices, we are having and always have had problems with guerrilla warfare. It is difficult in both an urban setting as well as a wilderness setting. We also have no idea to what extent soldiers would defect to the rebels' side. We do know from history that governments that have brutalized their citizens first took away their arms.

Remember "Give me liberty or give me death?" well, the prospect of living under tyranny led many a good man to give up his life for the possiblity of freedom.

Your argument begins with the basis that it is better to be a live mouse than a dead lion. I would challenge that premise (as many have for thousands of years.