.
Feedback

Who's Packing Heat In Your Nabe?

Burb Appeal Author Tina Traster checks out LOHUD's interactive gun map, and she doesn't like it

GULP!

“He’s got a gun!” I shriek.

“What do you mean?” my husband calls from the living room.

“He’s on the list. Quick, come here.”

My husband, Ricky, shuffles into my office, to my desk, where I’m staring agog at a map of Rockland County filled with purple dots.

Each dot in this interactive online map represents a homeowner who has registered for a pistol permit.

“Not surprised,” Ricky says.

“Me neither, but still. Makes me queasy.”

Over the years, we’ve fought with neighbors over one thing or another. Tempers have flared. Some spiteful things have been done, though nothing I’d categorize as violent. Knowing that many have guns — or at least a permit to own one — gives this a new spin. It makes me feel more vulnerable because even if someone is not inclined to be violent, what if?

What if one day they go berserk, take leave of their senses and bam!, settle the latest dispute with a lethal shot, rather than angry words?

“You’re being melodramatic,” my husband says, reading my thoughts.

Maybe. Maybe not.

A couple of years ago, a man down the road shot a neighbor for absolutely no reason — or at least no reason anyone ever figured out. It was at a condo complex at 6 in the morning. The victim was walking his dog when he was struck from behind. He was shot multiple times but survived. The shooter is in prison now. The incident was a reminder that guns are used against innocent people even in suburbia.

The interactive online map my local newspaper, the Journal News, published last month in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shooting has caused a huge controversy. Reporters have received death threats, and the paper has hired security. This week, Westchester County Executive Robert Astorino asked the paper to remove the map. And New York’s new gun-control bill signed by Gov. Cuomo includes a clause that will allow those with pistol permits to opt out of having their personal information available to the public.

As creepy as it is, knowing who owns a gun, I open every dot along my street and on a street around the corner. There are nearly 30 dots — 30 dots! I’m flabbergasted.

“You won’t believe this,” I say, pointing out a dot representing a different neighbor.

“Wow, now that really is surprising,” Ricky says.

The only time I met the neighbor, who has since moved away, I rang his bell on a Saturday morning. He answered, wearing a Japanese-style robe. He was sipping tea. He looked like a Zen master. He worked in the yoga business. That man with a gun is hard to imagine.

Maybe I’m totally naive, but I always thought gun owners lived in Texas or Kansas, not 45 minutes from Midtown.

I presumed the gun debate was a red state/blue state squabble. I was wrong. One out of every 23 people in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties is licensed to own a gun.

I do know about living with a gun in your home. I grew up in Brooklyn, and my father owned a pistol. He would tell me he carried it to protect himself when he traveled to bad neighborhoods for work.

I hated the idea he had a gun. I knew it could be turned against him in a nanosecond. Let’s face it — many people who keep or carry guns are not skilled at using them in a crisis. I despised the idea there was a gun in his bedroom, in our house. It gave me nightmares. I felt unsafe. Especially when my parents fought.

So it’s hard for me to fathom why so many of my neighbors are packing heat. Is it to ward off an intruder? To blow away a raccoon that’s tipping the garbage can?

Is it becoming a suburban must-have — like a lawn mower, a leaf blower, a grill?

If I had to make bets, I’d have thought one particular neighbor would have a gun, maybe even a few. He’s reclusive and unfriendly. And yet, no purple dot on the interactive map for him. Of course, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a weapon. The map, which has stirred a national controversy over privacy issues, only publishes names and addresses of those who have pistol permits. New York law does not require a permit to own a long gun, such as a rifle or shotgun.

And I wonder: If someone owns a pistol, are they more likely to also own a rifle? A shotgun? An assault weapon? An arsenal? A rocket launcher? Is it wrong to assume that where there is one gun, there is another? And what about those who own weapons illegally?

I have never considered owning a gun — I don’t think I ever could. I live in a relatively safe neighborhood. I’m well aware that many times a gun owner’s gun is turned against them in an incident. And I could never shoot anyone.

But I am thinking about a bulletproof vest. Maybe my gun-owning neighbors have a catalog I could thumb through?

E-mail: ttraster@aol.com

Harry One January 18, 2013 at 02:33 pm
Checking the map i saw names of people who moved 2 years ago . Will some one shoot or robe the new owner. Will the JN get credit for the crime,
Kevin Zawacki (Editor) January 18, 2013 at 04:20 pm
Patricia, are you pleased with the new NY gun legislation that was signed into law earlier this week?
Nicholas Ganz January 18, 2013 at 04:50 pm
A lot of us "pack heat" to enjoy target shooting and competative shooting. I went through a stringent process in NY that took over 6 months for me to recieve my permit. I had no objection to the fingerprinting, background checks, etc. but thought the process just took too long. Any criminal can buy a gun with greater ease and none of this legislation will deter this.
Catherine Paull January 18, 2013 at 04:56 pm
Yes, that is a concern. Fortunately we have some pretty good laws in place about car registration, licensing of drivers, laws against DUI, policing of suspected DUIs, etc. that address these concerns. The regulations that are being proposed for guns are prudent and not unreasonable. Take a look at the drop in DUI related deaths since the implementation of stricter regulations. We can address the gun problem and the gun violence problem and in 10 years be in a much safer, saner situation, without infringing on people's perceived "rights".
Catherine Paull January 18, 2013 at 05:00 pm
Federal laws which provide regulations that apply across the country would GREATLY reduce the proliferation of illegal weapons in the hands of criminals or anyone else. These illegal weapons are so readily available precisely because of the varying laws from state to state and the illegal trafficking of guns to stricter states. The NRA has made the penalties and prosecution of gun traficking difficult or impossible - and therein lies the source of those illegal weapons that you choose to blame. It all comes right back to the crazy leniency that the NRA has created.
Jake Rokeach January 18, 2013 at 07:28 pm
The Journal News needs armed guards NOW because of a small contingent of gun owners (unlike most reasonable gun owners) threatened the staff with violence and started mailing them envelopes of white powder. If they had armed guards BEFORE this controversy, then it would be odd. The hiring of armed guards in response to A REAL THREAT from private citizens is much different than a private citizen purchasing as many guns as possible because he believes that at some point the authorities will declare war on its own citizens. This isn't Syria. That's never going to happen here. That concept is ODD.
I would like to introduce you to the concept of context. Context, this is Felicia. Felicia, this is context.
Norman January 19, 2013 at 03:10 am
Tina, I think you're overreacting. If a gun owner gets to a point where his or her own gun is turned on them, then my guess would be that the perpetrator had a gun of their own in the first place. All of my anti gun friends always use that as their anti gun argument, that their own gun could be turned on them. Where does this line of thinking come from? It's totally unsubstantiated. It's very typical of north easterners to stereotype gun owners as people that are red state hicks from texas and so on. That is absurd. 1 in 23 are licensed here...but many many more have long guns. I too saw one of my neighbors on the map and was in a bit of disbelief, and I find it funny that no one on my street knows what I have. But I guarantee that a would be intruder would find out quickly, as I would do what is necessary to protect my wife and children.
Catherine Paull January 19, 2013 at 11:34 am
Norman, there are studies that support the fact that many guns are "turned on" the people who own them - this is not an unsubstantiated reality. And your assumption that if that ever were to happen that the perp would have had his own gun anyway is ridiculous and pointless. I have witnessed first-hand how quickly a committed and agitated attacker can disarm and use a weapon against a man who was intending to protect himself with. And in case it hasn't occurred to you, the mother of the shooter in the Newtown shooting was killed with one of the weapons that she had stockpiled. You think you need an arsenal of weapons to protect yourself - well, I think that is an overreaction. And the people who are afraid of the regulation of assault weapons and ammunition are the ones who need to reconsider their thinking process.
MCD January 19, 2013 at 01:33 pm
Talk about hyseterical scenarios??? Just a wee bit paranoid I think,
Norman January 19, 2013 at 08:39 pm
Okay Catherine Paull, so I guess the prudent thing to do would be to not have any weapon in my house, and if a perp comes in, I'll rush to call 911 and then hide my family and hope the perp doesn't hurt us. If he tries to hurt me or my family I won't try to fight him man to man for fear that he might hurt me badly or even kill me. Stupid.
First of all I never said I or anyone had to have a weapon. I feel it's necessary to have a shotgun to attempt to protect myself in the event that someone breaks in. Also, yes I know what happened with the mother; she trusted her son and let him have access to everything. she obviously was an idiot and very irresponsible. But an ar-15 being called an assault weapon is a joke; all weapons are assault weapons. I can assault anyone with my shotgun even though it's not called an assault weapon. And there was an assault weapons ban nationwide when columbine happened and an ammunition cartridge limit, so the boys just brought more cartridges with them. It's like bloomberg's 160z soda limit, you can just buy 2 160zs instead. The home broken into in new city is just proof that the more you ban, the more valuable what you can steal will become.
Catherine Paull January 19, 2013 at 09:03 pm
Marty: It's hard to tell just who you are calling paranoid!
In any case, I think it is reasonable for someone who wants to own assault weapons to be concerned. It is not reasonable for someone who wants to keep their hand-gun, rifle, shotgun, etc to be concerned. There is no "slippery slope" that is suddenly going to cause all guns to be banned and confiscated - that is pure delusional thinking. It is reasonable to be concerned about the proliferation of assault weapons and the reality that they can be (and have been) used to kill large numbers of innocent people in seconds. That is fact, not fantasy. That is reality, not imagined concerns.
Catherine Paull January 20, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Your "prudent" scenario is not my suggestion for you, nor my belief - that's a strawman that you concocted so you could have something to knock down.
If having a weapon in your home makes you feel better, then you have the right to do that - neither Obama, nor any other representative is proposing to take all weapons away or make all weapons illegal. "Assault" is the name used to describe a certain kind of weapon that has no purpose other than to kill as many people in as short a time as possible. All intelligent people have agreed that shotguns are not "Assault" weapons. Reinstating the ban on AWs is a prudent step in an effort to reduce gun violence. During the 10 years that the AW ban was in effect, AW weapons used in crimes decreased by up to 72%. It takes decades for regulations like this to have an effect, and the ban was lifted, just as things were really starting to make a difference. Nothing is going to prevent all attempts by evil or deranged people to do real damage, but taking prudent steps that have already proven to be effective is just reasonable and won't prevent people like you from having the weapons they feel they need (or love). It is not a joke to call AR-15s "Assault" weapons, these weapons result in more shots fired, more people hit, and more wounds per victim than attacks with other firearms. We can create a safer society without restricting gun ownership rights and in 10 or 20 years from now our children and grandchildren will thank us.
JC Brotherhood January 20, 2013 at 02:10 pm
First, can we stop with the comparisons made between drunk driving and gun related deaths? On the one hand the incident is rarely intentional, on the other hand, the incident is rarely an accident; (recent darwinian events at gun shows yesterday not-withstanding). Second, "assault weapons" are weapons designed to engage in the assault of a defended target. It is not defined by the ordinary assault on an unsuspecting or innocent or defenseless individual. That is an assault no question about it but assault in terms of a military style weapon is a much different thing involving suppressing lines of fire which are afforded by high capacity magazines. Last I heard, deer don't return fire. As a matter of fact even though I am not a hunter I believe hunting weapons are already restricted to magazine capacities of seven or less. (someone correct me if I am wrong). So wy does someone need a thirty round clip in an AR15? The Bushmaster ad says "your man-card re-issued". Well if you believe the paranoid scenarios about tryranical suppression of your rights then your "man-card" will likely be revoked by someone in an up-armored humvee with a belt fed M60. Good luck with that little .223 pal.
JC Brotherhood January 20, 2013 at 02:14 pm
By the way. Our rights in this country are guaranteed by the ballot, not the bullet, look it up 200 years plus of the peaceful transition of power.
Norman January 20, 2013 at 10:04 pm
Catherine, the Newtown shooting has been reported a half dozen different ways. We still don't know who the man is they found in the woods, and we don't know if the damn Ar-15 was actually in the trunk or used in the shooting. And, an AR-15 "assault" weapon is no different than a semiautomatic rifle except the way it looks and the cartridges it accepts. They only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger, they are not automatic. That being said, you are naive if you believe there's no such thing as a slippery slope. Who knows if that is or will be the case in NY or the USA, but it has happened in history as you should and probably do know, in several countries, and history is our teacher. I'm not being paranoid, but it is reasonable to be concerned. Again, not reasonable for people to freak out and assume guns are going to be confiscated, but already there is talk of a national registry, which I believe to be unconstitutional and a cause for alarm.
Norman January 21, 2013 at 04:49 am
People hunt with Ar-15s catherine. And read up on the Columbine massacre, that happened during the Assault Ban and yet they still used an Assault weapon, as it were (semi auto pistols)
Also shotguns are designed to kill people. The spray of a shotgun round guarantees you won't miss your target. That's why people buy them for Home defense . And our rights in this country are guaranteed by the constitution and were won by the bullet. JC, come on man, And catherine, yes assault weapons used in crimes did decrease, so people just used other, legal guns in their crimes. You almost come off as trying to do away with assault weapons for the sake of doing away with assault weapons. And my straw man? well you're strawman is someone like me having their gun turned against them. Yes I suppose if it weren't locked up and I had no idea how to use it and it jammed or something, but I have a better chance of protecting myself if I have one than if I don't. Also, the constitution and the supreme court guarantee my right to own firearms. If people didn't use AR-15s in killings, they would, and have, use something else. If AR-15s should be banned then so should all pistols. Because pistols are easily concealed and the semiauto pistols are just as deadly as the ar-15.
Catherine Paull January 21, 2013 at 11:14 am
Norman: Your belief in the slippery slope is the source of your paranoia. You are the same as the people who fought against interracial marriage, voting rights for women, voting rights for blacks - all claimed the slippery slope as their reason. You are the same as the people who fight against the right of gay people to marry, claiming that people will soon be marrying animals based on their "slippery slope" paranoia. This is not the Dark Ages (and it won't happer here no matter how hard some try to drag us back there), nor are we in a country where a dictator can rise to power (no matter how the crazies might shout about their Imaginary Hitler on the horizon). I'm glad you said "not reasonable for people to freak out and assume guns are going to be confiscated", because that is exactly what people are doing and you are right - it is NOT reasonable to fear that. I understand that you fear a national registry of weapons, but I don't. I do think that if we have a national registry, that we must be vigilant about how it is used and I think that we are capable of that. Our police need the tools that could be available to protect our communities and our peaceful citizens, as we have charged them to do.
The Last Patriot January 22, 2013 at 01:12 am
I cannot believe how out of control this whole thing has gotten. Ban this and ban that. Have fun putting your life in that hands of the police who are 5 minutes away. I bet all of you Liberals have never even read the constitution. You're too busy asking for bigger government and more regulations to save you from an invisible, fictitious boogeyman. What an absolute disgrace.
"Posterity, You will never kmow how much was sacraficed to preserve your freedom; I hope you will make a good use of it. if you do not..I shall repent in heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it." -John Adams
Catherine Paull January 22, 2013 at 02:38 am
Ah, Norman, now you're not even making sense. Maybe you want to look up "straw man", since the facts show that people are more likely to be injured or killed by the guns they have than to ever use them in the protection of their home/family, so that a real thing - not a made up straw man. And of course the Assault Weapon ban didn't miraculously make all the assault weapons disappear - who in the world would ever expect such a result? If you can't see the difference between the carnage that can be produced by a shotgun and an AR-15 then there is clearly no way to have a discussion. Fear and fantasy-land is immune to reason.
Catherine Paull January 22, 2013 at 06:10 pm
There are no boogeymen - just facts and realities that a society faces and deals with. Hysteria in either direction is not useful. The second amendment states very clearly a "WELL REGULATED" Militia. I think the founders would understand very well exactly why assault weapons should be Well Regulated, even without the loss of so many innocent lives recently. It made sense year ago and it makes even more sense now. Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which banned ownership of fully automatic rifles and he supported the supported the Assault Weapons ban saying, "As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms . I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary." There is room for reason whether you love guns or hate them. Surely we are mature enough to act with reason and not pugnacious attacks.
Jane B January 22, 2013 at 07:13 pm
I am grateful the gun owner list was published. I certainly do not want my kids playing in houses where there are guns, and most gun owners around here do not have the common decency to mention there is a gun in the house if there is one when they invite your kid over to play. That is really irresponsible. I looked at everyone in my town who owns a gun, so now I know. Great job, Journal News.
Marcos Mess January 23, 2013 at 08:52 pm
Well, YOU THOUGHT you lived in a relatively safe neighborhood..... until the guy down the street almost killed someone who he didnt even know and for no reason! Was the shooter a permit holder? would he have been on the map? what difference would it have made? Maybe we should all act as if everyone has a gun and watch how we treat each other...just in case. I am not referring to the shooting on Mt View meaning there was ANY interaction between the victim and shooter. that is not what I am getting at , just to make that clear.
MCD January 24, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Should they make that a topic of conversation? "Oh, by the way I own a gun" Keep your kids at home and while doing so make up a quesitonaire that you can hand out to all your kids friends to see if they fit your standards. Evaluate the questionaire, sit the parents down for an interview, then decide if they can play together. Oh, dont forget to do a criminal background check as well. Give me a break. It's not like gun owners leave them out on the coffee table!
Norman January 29, 2013 at 08:09 pm
Catherine, of course you would use racism and sexism to paint a picture of someone like me that wants to protect gun rights. You are truly a lunatic, anyone that would bring race into a gun discussion. Who the heck are you in society that you would believe your own rantings?
Norman January 29, 2013 at 08:11 pm
Also Catherine the Paull, where are your studies showing that gun owners often get injured or killed by their own weapon? So do some car owners and knife owners.
People like you are the reason why I will be another person in a long line of people to leave rockland and ny state.
Catherine Paull January 30, 2013 at 07:16 pm
I don't think I've used racism or sexism! I simply think that no restrictions on assault weapons is not a reasonable policy for our country. I think I am in the majority - and I am very glad of that. I hope that in this case the majority will prevail.
Catherine Paull January 30, 2013 at 07:23 pm
You neglect the fact that cars are useful (and intended) for things other than killing, and so are knives.
One thing that is clear: Guns are effective lethal weapons. If there were no guns, the lethality of crimes would be less. You can’t have a drive-by knifing. On Dec. 14, the day of the shooting in Newtown, another attack occurred at an elementary school in China. The attacker there had a knife, and injured 22 kids and one adult. But no one was killed. Why the stark difference in fatalities? The answer is the type of weapon they had.
Norman February 1, 2013 at 02:42 am
That example is a good example for your argument, but the FBI statistics show that most violent crimes are committed with a weapon other than a firearm. Also, yes cars and knives are made for other things, true. But so what? They still kill a whole bunch of people. If there were no guns blah blah, etc.....There are a lot of ifs in life, but that's like saying if there was no alcohol then there'd be no drunk driving. If our parents never chose to have children then we wouldn't be born and have to go through the ups and downs of life. You can't if an argument; you have to have an argument based on what is reality, not what you'd like reality to be. And the reality is that guns help people ward off crime, would be assailants, murderers, etc. That is fact.
Norman February 1, 2013 at 09:38 pm
Catherine, here is your prior statement that sounds like you are comparing gun rights people to those that were against rights of certain groups and minorities.
"our belief in the slippery slope is the source of your paranoia. You are the same as the people who fought against interracial marriage, voting rights for women, voting rights for blacks - all claimed the slippery slope as their reason. You are the same as the people who fight against the right of gay people to marry, claiming that people will soon be marrying animals based on their "slippery slope" paranoia." -Catherine Paull of the river villages area
Catherine Paull February 2, 2013 at 12:45 pm
I stand by these statements, since I am comparing your paranoia to the paranoia of other people whose paranoia has proven to be wrong-headed and ignorant. The "slippery-slope-paranoia" has been a common one throughout history, and your version is as wrong and as foolish as those that preceeded it. You put labels on the people who held these paranoid belief, not me. I'm not labelling them and I'm not labelling you and people who share your paranoia - I am merely showing the connection that this slippery-slope thinking has in a historical sense.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Nyack-Piermont Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Lisa Buchman (Editor) June 13, 2013 at 11:09 am
Congratulations to Nyack Boat Club and member Justin Coplan! Would love to see photos of the team inRead More action!
Aerial of United Water's proposed water treatment plant location
Caleb June 13, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Untrue. Perhaps if United Water wasn't sending over 2 million gallons a day from Deforest Lake toRead More they're customers in Bergen County we would not have this shortage. Hydrologists have shown that there is enough water regularly collected in Rockland's reservoirs and aquifers for our current and growing needs. Many of the "facts" that United Water is putting forward are outdated, and are based on they're own mismanagement of our water basin. Lets remember that United Water has repeatedly been removed as a water provider of major cities throughout this country (6+ last time I checked, notably even from Camden NJ) for mismanagement of water resources. I think its a prudent choice to look into a plant that we will be stuck paying for for the next 4 years from a company that has repeatedly lied and provided water with toxin levels high above legal limits to they're customers. Better safe than sorry.
John Taggart June 13, 2013 at 11:59 pm
Rockland has grown to the point that it needs more water. Terminating the flow of a river and takingRead More the water resources away from other communities (stealing what we need) isn't going to happen.
drostan June 19, 2013 at 03:13 pm
A Response to the Response Mr. Michael Pointing, writing on behalf of United Water, opined in theRead More Journal News (June 7) and the Nyack Patch (June 11) that an Issues Conference on the pending desalination project is unnecessary. When it is so greatly to his personal and professional benefit to support this project, how can he expect to be taken seriously? Comments on the "desal" plant have only rarely mentioned that the radioactive tritium, which each day leaks into the Hudson from Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant - just 3 miles upstream from the plant - will end up, in diluted form, in our drinking water. Problem is, although highly diluted, there's no way to filter out tritium since it is chemically identical to water. Worse, there's no known safe exposure level. Like "normal" water, tritium goes into your body as fast as you drink it. Good news: about half of the tritium you do drink is filtered out by the kidneys within about ten days. Bad news: When your kitchen faucet keeps providing you with small amounts of tritium day after day, it tends to keep whatever levels you have in your body elevated. Welcome to your future, Rockland. Say, how about cracking open a nice plastic bottle of Deer Park for mixing up that baby formula? Why does United Water want this project to go forward so quickly as to necessarily preclude a thorough public education process in which all the variables and all the options can be openly discussed? What if one day you decided you don't like UW anymore and you wished the water utility was still owned by the government and not the private sector, because at least that way through your vote, you could democratically elect new people who would shut the plant down (whereas you can never "vote out" a private corporation from owning the pipes that carry your drinking water)? Let's just say arbitrarily that for the first ten years following completion of this more or less irreversible project there was an average of 500 additional picocuries of tritium per liter showing up in drinking water in Rockland County that was not there before. Even the NRC says Indian Point emits tritium into the ground water and presumably into the Hudson as well, since Hudson water is what flows - 24 hours a day - into and out of the power plant, cooling the atomic reaction that creates electrical power). In 1976 the EPA decided (more or less arbitrarily) that 20,000 picocuries of radioactivity would be roughly the "safe" upper limit for human consumption (due to drinking tritium or any other radionuclide). I say "arbitrarily" because I am aware of no one who has actually tried this since then, to see if it really turned out to be safe. Whose insurance policy would make Rockland homeowners whole again if at some future point tritium (or other radionuclide) levels skyrocketed while property values plummeted? Maybe something so terrible could never, ever happen. I certainly hope it couldn't. But why are we residents the guinea pigs, and how come we pay more - not less - for our water just so UW can do more business and, of course, collect more in utility bills? By the way, Fukushima was also never ever supposed to happen. Human health is not something you go back and study all over again once you realize you've lost it. Doesn't Rockland County have enough cancer already? Dan Rostan Nyack