Still flogging a phony issue-

There's zero evidence that the hypothetical situation you propose has happened or is at all likely. And your proposing it strikes me as insincere and self-serving, since you ignore the other effects of publishing this information.

Why is it not more likely that a stalker or dumped or potential boyfriend obtained a gun, and the stalkee might find out via the newspaper?

Why is it not more likely that someone might keep their family away from a home with guns and prevent an accident?

Why is it not more likely that one could urge a woman to leave a home with a gun, or get rid of her own gun, and save a life? "In 2007, 4,177 women were killed with firearms in the United States. Just over half of firearm deaths to women are suicides (2,171) and just under half (1,865) are homicides (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC))."

Look at the statistics for accidental deaths with firearms. Look at the statistics for assaults ON women with guns--vs. the likelihood of the scenario you cook up. "U.S. women's firearm death rate is 12 times higher than the combined rate of 22 other populous, high-income countries ... Gun owners are 7.8 times more likely than non-gun owners to have threatened their partners with guns "[brady center]

If your argument is that there is more net harm caused by publication than public benefit, you need to explain why the much more likely and demonstrably common events like accidents aren't going to be prevented--and far outweigh the unlikely scenario that boyfriend X, who doesn't even know where some woman is, will surmise she bought a gun and go clicking through every dot on a newspaper website tracker of an entire county's guns on the off chance he finds her--and then conclude that he wants to confront that armed person.

And that's apart from a basic misunderstanding about public records. You take a typical right-wing position that the public should bear the cost of your "personal" activity (through gun registrations, police monitoring, the social cost of killings and accidents)--yet afford you a special anonymous status. If that's your position, you should be arguing for legislation to keep the records secret and honestly convince the public that they should agree with you. But you don't do that. you argue that the newspaper is directly causing harm But you don't take an honest view of that either. Nor do you bother to think that public access to records, inconvenient to some, is a social good on its own--that we try to uphold in general for good reason.

As far as I see, the only real harm so far is to the newspaper staffers who had nothing to do with the story and have been harassed by right wing guntards: look at the angry CT bloggers comment section to see who is doing this.

Your argument is nonsense. But I'm sure it's motivated by a longstanding concern about violence against women.