CHICAGO: Mayor determined to preserve city gun law despite judge’s ruling

[GreenStormCloud]

Calling tougher gun laws pivotal to Chicago’s crime-fighting strategy, Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Wednesday he would do whatever it takes to protect the legal integrity of the city’s firearms ordinance, a portion of which was overturned by a federal judge.

Emanuel refused to say whether he would appeal U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan’s ruling, or simply rewrite the overturned section used to deny a man a gun permit because of a prior misdemeanor conviction.

The firearms ordinance was rushed into place in 2010 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban. And the mayor noted that Der-Yeghiayan had left it largely “intact.”

Emanuel said he would await Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton’s recommendation before deciding which way to go. But the mayor said he is determined to preserve the ordinance one way or another.

MORE AT LINK: http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/13304283-418/mayor-determined-to-preserve-city-gun-law-despite-judges-ruling.html

The article says that Chicago's murder rate has climbed 35% and that their shooting are also up. Meanwhile the rest of the nation continued to see declining murder and violent crime rates. Chicago's population is 9.8 million and had 441 homicides. Meanwhile, El Paso, TX (Population 730,000) had only 14 murders in 2011. That yields a murder rate for Chicago that is 2.35 times higher than El Paso's. El Paso has more guns than people.

[clang1]

1. re: CHICAGO: Mayor determined to preserve city gun law despite judge’s ruling

The madness of banning guns in one place and then selling them just down the road.

[PavePusher]

2. Please explain how that relates to the crime stats refered to?

[clang1]

5. Get into car

Drive outside of city, purchase weapons, bring them back into city. Did you really really need to ask that? You can go find your own stats as well. I don't need any for what I can see with my own two eyes. Why don't you make some comparisons between Chicago and NYC if you really are interested. Why don't you do some research on gun control in NYC. It will tell you some things about Chicago.

[gejohnston]

8. Since you need a license called a FOID in illinois

to buy any firearm. Are gang bangers getting FOIDs?

[DonP]

10. How many guns have you bought in Illinois?

Ever tried to actually buy one across the state line in Indiana or Wisconsin?

I do both all the time and have for decades.

And I have seen people from Chicago walk into a gun store I was in and try to buy a handgun. When they are told they can't sell to them, based on their home address, they get really pissed at the store owner as if they made the regulations.

Not trying to be a smart ass, at least not yet anyway, but buying guns, especially in Illinois, is a hell of a lot more complicated and highly regulated than many people here seem to think it is. They buy into the stupid "Gun Show Loophole" and think you just walk in, put your money down and drive away with your AK-47.

It's not complicated for a gang banger though. They send family and friends down to Alabama or Mississippi or Tennessee and have other family members buy their guns in different stores around the state. Then they drive them back up to Englewood, Chatham or Pilsen and sell a few to pay for the trip and keep the rest.

[PavePusher]

16. I'm not sure what your ultimate point is.

If you are saying that the "gun control" laws in some cities are stupidly restrictive, with no apparent effect on crime, I'm with you.

If you are saying that in places with far less restriction, crime rates are generally lower, I agree with that too.

If you are saying that all places need to have Chicago or NY's level of "gun control", I am not in agreement.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. It seems the argument would be in favor of a national regulatory scheme

Just like the national prohibition on the production, sale, possession and use of marijuana.

[PavePusher]

43. Oooo, ooo, ooo... we could copy the alcohol prohibition, 'cause that worked so well too!

This game is fun, let's play some more!

[Starboard Tack]

3. Thank god for another sane mayor.

Chicago has some major crime problems. The last thing it needs is more guns on the streets. I think the people of Chicago should decide these things and they voted in Rahm, just like they voted in Bloomberg in NYC and Villaraigosa in LA. All imperfect men, but dedicated mayors in terms of public safety, which, after all, should be their number one priority.
Murder stats have nothing to do with population size. The poor and under privileged of Chicago, live in Chicago. The poor and under privileged of El Paso don't exist, because they live a few hundred yards away in Juarez, where they happily kill more people on a daily basis than just about anywhere in the world.

[mvccd1000]

4. "Sane mayors" think it's ok to flout the law?

Interesting concept, but it doesn't seem to hold much water in the rest of the country.

I guess Chicago's almost as used to it as Detroit is.

[Hoyt]

12. He's proposing to rewrite vague section of law to make it clear -- "No Friggin Guns Here."

That should solve judge's issue.

I support big city mayors with the guts to take on the gun culture. Hope some small city mayor start doing the same.

[DonP]

14. "Support"? Other than online whining, what form does that support take?

Previously asked about "support"... ?

Rahm needs to make another payment next month on the McDonald SCOTUS court loss and the legal bills for losing the Ezell case will be coming up soon too. Even a small check from that "broad base" of the 96% of the non-carrying population that you claim as gun control supporters here on DU will help.

The last check he had to write, with taxpayer money of course, for being "sane" was "only" $391,900 to the ISRA and Second Amendment Foundation IIRC. The next one should be close to that amount as well.

How about a check from you and each of your like minded friends for $10 to Rahm with a short hand written personal note saying "We support your sane gun control solution Rahm", maybe one of his multiple armed bodyguards will hand the note to him? Come on, a sawbuck, that's less than a third of an NRA membership or 3 Latte's at the local coffee house to prove you really believe in his "sane" solutions?

Let me guess, another gun control "supporter" that just posts angry, rude screeds online as your "contribution" to supporting your beliefs? No wonder the NRA keeps winning every case and legislative initiative.

[Hoyt]

15. Hug your buddies from the NRA Board of Directors next time you see them.

[PavePusher]

17. Another dodge from you? With a baseless accusation again?

Whodathunkit.

[Hoyt]

20. So what are you saying -- you and your gun buddies are sending money to the Republicans?

I'm assume the Chicago Republicans are out after votes in the next election from those who find guns more important than anything else in our country.

I thought we weren't supposed to bad-mouth Democrats on DU. Of course, this is the gungeon where Democratic principles mean little.

[DonP]

22. Chicago Republicans! That's hysterical.

There are no Chicago Republicans you idiot!

Not many in the whole state of Illinois.

Unlike Georgia we've managed to keep control of all the elective offices.

All the pro gun legislation is Dem drafted and Dem supported. Try again.

[Hoyt]

23. Yes there are Repuke candidates, and with the support of the gun crowd they may win someday.

So who is/are the "idiot(s)."

[hack89]

25. But right now the pro-gun Dems are winning so everything is good. nt

[DonP]

26. "So who is/are the "idiot(s)." Umm, you are, for knowing nothing about Illinois politics.

There aren't even any GOP candidates for alderman, mayor or most other city and county offices. Last time around they even struggled to come up with someone to run for Governor.

The last GOP that held any major office (Governor Ryan) is still in prison (but, then again, so is the last Dem that held it too).

The current crop of CCW proposals are all Dem drafted and Dem supported.

But come on up, it's an all Blue state with complete gun control and no CCW. Much better than that hell hole you live in with CCW everywhere around you.

You'd love it ... well, if it wasn't for the 45 shootings and 7 or 8 deaths every weekend, it would be your kind of paradise.

[Hoyt]

40. And, if you gun lovers have your way -- all that will change.

I hope not, but have you been shot walking around?

[DonP]

46. Again, what are you doing about it?

Georgia still has shall issue CCW? Why aren't you doing something about it?

Why aren't you giving up just 3 lattes to send $10 to "support" Rahm's new laws, the way you said you did? It would help offset a little of that money they have to pay for following your suggestion and standing up to the NRA and losing.

You come across like a frenzied parrot.

"Awk, look Ted Nugent, Right Wing shills, GOP, NRA, Gun Nuts awk, awk, (pay no attention to the fact that I don't do shit to support my beliefs), awk awk!"

Y'all have a good weekend confronting all those CCW permit holders in your neighborhood.

[DonP]

18. So, when you say you "support gun control" you actually mean - you do nothing?

You made a statement of how much you support Rahm on this, you were asked about what form that support took, and now you're running away again rather than answer a simple question.

I hope you offer the Dem candidates in Georgia a better, more real level of support in the real world, and just lie about "support" online..

You try to be a big shot gun control supporter online and can't even be bothered to give up 3 Lattes a year to put your money where your mouth is on something you claim to be so passionate and hardcore about.

We all pretty much knew that, but it's always good to keep the record current of how phony your claims and statements really are, so we can give them the credibility they actually deserve.

Oh, and I guess you forgot, we've been told in multiple posts that the NRA has no real political power to sway elections. You guys really need to get your phony stories straight.

[Hoyt]

19. NRA has plenty of power and is out to beat Obama. I am sure your devoted support is appreciated.

Now, why don't you quit supporting and standing up for right wing groups that are out to defeat Obama and true progressive causes for many reasons that are not always related to your love of guns?

[DonP]

21. No they really don't. They're no threat this year. A gun control fan told us so.

Several times, with long, tedious, cut and paste posts, using "proof" from past elections that they have no ability to sway elections.

You really need to get up to speed on what the latest gun control talking points are and stop deflecting and trying to besmirch me with poorly phrased innuendo. That was one of your buddy Iverglas' favorite stunts too. Didn't work out too well for her either.

But if the NRA did have any power, the original question you keep shying away from is, what are you and you little friends doing to counter it?

Short answer, not a damn thing, except whining online.

[Hoyt]

24. They are dumping money and support into beating Obama -- yet you love and support them.

[DonP]

28. Only the money that people contribute to the lobbying side of the organization, and thanks to you ..

... all the money that they get paid in the lawsuits they win, when assholes sitting on the sidelines encourage people like Rahm to, "stand up to the NRA".

Then they get their ass beaten again and again and have to fork over millions to the NRA political side which, unlike basic membership dues, can all go directly into their campaign work.

So it's actually people like you, with a big mouth, no real stake in the game and no real support, that make sure their coffers are filled regularly with big legal awards. Of course that also drives up their general membership each time it happens too.

I know that makes for an ugly picture, but there it is. Check the mirror for a big NRA "contributor".

[Hoyt]

41. Wrong, the Executive Director and Board Members such as Teddie Nugent speak out agains Obama?

Any you keep paying the membership fee and singing their praises.

I'm supporting a Democrat trying to do what he (and I) think is right -- keeping right wing gun owners off the streets and from amassing gun caches.

[DonP]

47. What a coincidence - I'm supporting a Dem that wants concealed carry in Illinois.

But I'd appreciate a link to me, or anyone else here, "singing the praises of the NRA Board Members or Executive Director".

Otherwise an apology and a withdrawal is appropriate when you lie about other DU members.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Your 'support' for Rahm is like your support of Georgia Democrats- lip service only.

Because unlike you, Georgia Democrats (like Democrats everywhere) are part of the culture:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117217244#post36

And, no I'm not part of the Georgia culture. Far from it.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Challenging laws is not flouting them. That's how they get changed.

It is important that our major cities be gun free, because that's where the people live. Public safety comes first. Your individual rights are worth nothing in the midst of chaos and anarchy.
There is a critical point any society reaches when individual rights exceed public safety. Think about it.

[DonP]

32. It WAS challenged, he lost - several times!

Or do you think it's OK to ignore court rulings in general, or only over firearm related laws?

The last group that thought that way were concerned about that whole integration thing.

Which other constitutional rights, that have been upheld by the courts, do you think should be optional or controlled in the cities or states? Voting rights? Abortion laws? Free speech? Freedom to assemble? Some mayors, like Bloomie, are arresting and locking up the OWS crowd. That OK with you, as long as they frisk them for guns while they are at it?

It seems to me that we have a small (and shrinking) cadre of "progressives" that are perfectly willing to throw the laws and constitution out the window as long as it relates to firearms. They suddenly embrace the Bush/Cheney no fly lists, don't mind illegal searches and seizures and such, if the search is for firearms and don't support a right to privacy, as long as they are publishing a list of gun owners or CCW permit holders.

Situational ethics and principles?

[Starboard Tack]

39. You hit the nail on the head!

"It seems to me that we have a small (and shrinking) cadre of "progressives" that are perfectly willing to throw the laws and constitution out the window as long as it relates to firearms."

You think carrying a gun is progressive. You think our RW SCOTUS is infallible. You think the BoR was engraved in stone and handed to Moses. You think laws cannot be changed by those we elect. You think public safety should be left in the hands of a handful of gun nuts. If you don't want to be on a list of crazies, don't sign up for the crazy shit. How many flights have you missed because of the No Fly List?

Tell me where I'm wrong.

[DonP]

44. "Where am I wotng?" Where to start?

Let's do it piece by foam flecked piece.

"You think carrying a gun is progressive."

No, the allowing the individual, law abiding citizen the right to choose is progressive. 49 states agree with me.

"You think our RW SCOTUS is infallible."

Get a grip. This has nothing to do with SCOTUS, it was an appellate court judge, appointed by Clinton that made the decision.

"You think the BoR was engraved in stone and handed to Moses."

No, but it' a great idea to have restrictions on your government though and that's all the BoR is, guardrails for the government. It's been interpreted for over 2 centuries now, mostly correctly in the end, and will continue to be expanded as needed. Damn lucky it has too, otherwise there would be no woman's right to choose, women's suffrage or civil rights among others.

"You think laws cannot be changed by those we elect."

Sure they can. Do you have even a fundamental understanding of how the checks and balances systems works in this country works? The elected legislators pass the law, the executive branch approves it and, if needed, the judicial determines if it's constitutional? This is a case of the judiciary saying "no fucking way Rahm". Umm, that's part of the constitution that you seem to think we want to throw out too.

"You think public safety should be left in the hands of a handful of gun nuts.

Now you're just being stupid to try and create an ugly scene. But I do believe people should have the option of choosing to defend themselves with the most effective tool for the job. Or you can choose to trust to statistics and the good graces of criminals for your safety.

"If you don't want to be on a list of crazies, don't sign up for the crazy shit. How many flights have you missed because of the No Fly List?"

You must know something the rest of us don't. Last I checked no one knew how anyone got on the no fly "Terrah" list that Cheney and Bush started and that you seem to love so much now.

There is also no known way to get off the list and no one will even confirm whether you are on the list either. So please tell the whole class how the "Crazies" like Ted Kennedy, got on the list and where anyone can go to have their name removed from it?

Gun control, excuse me, "pro public safety" people are just not good losers on any level.

[Starboard Tack]

51. OK, let's look at your flecks.

"No, the allowing the individual, law abiding citizen the right to choose is progressive. 49 states agree with me."

I never suggested it wasn't. I asked the question "You think carrying a gun is progressive?" Not what you thought of the laws, but the behavior.

Judges rule, based on precedent. That precedent is often set by SCOTUS, which is loaded with RW appointees.

You brought up Cheney/Bush no fly list. I really wouldn't know. I don't fly. Life is too good for all that. I don't know what guns have to do with flying, except that nobody wants them on planes, besides a few gun nuts. But I see planes flying every day and things appear to be working OK. If they were responsible for 30,000 deaths each year, they would probably all be grounded and only a handful of plane nuts would be flying. Oh, fuck it, let's just make it legal to carry loaded weapons on all flights.

I think everyone should have the legal right to own a gun, as long as anyone has that right. Everyone, not just the super clean, "law abiding" non-existent citizens who feel the "need" to protect themselves at every turn. Everyone.
They should also have the right to carry it anywhere that anyone else is allowed to carry.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. This guy *also* thought Federal judges could be defied:

Who knew a segregationist would become a role model for some here?...

[Starboard Tack]

53. Oh, nice!

Well, he got sorted out nicely, didn't he? Southern style.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. I think you understand little about Alabama and it's residents' desire to be desegregation-free

That was your metric for this sort of thing in post #57. Depends on whose ox is getting gored, eh?

[Starboard Tack]

69. I think you are confusing me with someone else

[Remmah2]

7. Another sane mayor protected by a small army of people with handguns and automatic weapons.

24 hour on call protection and armed escorts for the family as needed.

Sane mayor? Let him live, walk and work amoungst the citizens of Chicago in the same manner as he wishes the commoners to live. He's just another 1%.

[Starboard Tack]

31. What does any of that have to do with public safety?

Do you think this is a game of who get's to carry a gun? Get real. Gun carriers are the 1%. We are all 1% in one sense or another. Don't try to conflate public safety with OWS.

[Remmah2]

61. Mayors of Chicago and NYC are elitist 1%.

Money, power and corruption. Do as we say, not as we do. They are protected by guns and have the attitude of screw the common person.

Comprendo?

Got a clue?

[Starboard Tack]

67. Are you insinuating that all of the dreaded 1% are corrupt devils?

Don't you think politicians in high office in a gun-fucking-crazy country should be protected? Talk about getting a clue!

[gejohnston]

72. Finland is more gun fucking crazy than we are

they don't seem to have such problems. Hell, they have bachelor parties at shooting ranges.

[Starboard Tack]

73. Finland has about 16 times the number of gun deaths as the UK.

2 out of every 3 homicides in Finland is committed with a firearm. Finland has an over all homicide rate more than triple that of the UK.

[gejohnston]

76. hardly triple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
not even quite twice. But like Norway and Switzerland, they are not legal guns.As far as means of murders, doesn't really matter. How many Russian murders are committed with a firearm? Either way, their murder rate is triple ours.
They might have more suicides by gun in Finland, but concentrating about the means is a wasteful distraction.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Just more numbers and stats.

UK still the lowest, though it is the "most violent". Interesting. Do we want violent, but alive, or peaceful and deadly?

[gejohnston]

83. false choice,

I think Switzerland and Norway have a better model. Peaceful and living. Japan and South Korea do too, but their suicide rates are insane.

[GreenStormCloud]

74. The point is they deny ordinary people the right to protect themselves.

And you join them in wanting to deny such protection to ordinary folks.

[Starboard Tack]

75. Ordinary people don't carry guns. Sorry to disappoint you.

There is nothing ordinary about it. Guns do not offer protection, they offer death and destruction when carried in public. How can you use a gun in public without endangering others?

[gejohnston]

78. happens a lot

the proper training with it does, certainly does far more than a dog.

[Starboard Tack]

80. The danger still exists.

Fukushima and Chernobyl were fine until they blew. The danger was always there.

[GreenStormCloud]

86. Guns do offer protection when properly used.

I have posted many times about my wife's two incidents and about myself pulling my .45 on a burglar.

Usually, but not always, when a person is endangered by violent crime there is no one else around. Criminals like to attack their victims when the victim is alone.

Most, but not all, self-defense shooting are at point-blank range - less than five feet. Hard to miss at that distance.

I have posted proof several times that CCWers save more innocent lives than we take. You have ignored all those posts. I shall post it again, and you will ignore it again.

Legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes.

In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2009 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2009 there were 402,914 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there was exactly one (1) murder conviction and no manslaughter convictions. Out of the general population there were 600+ convictions for murder in its various forms and manslaughter.
So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/09/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:
Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2009, there were 106 justifiable homicides, of
which, 52 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 54 were felons killed by police.

In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 52 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely and legitimately feared for his life. Since most shooting are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus one innocent killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives.

[oneshooter]

93. According to Hoyt those Texas DPS stats are lies.

[Remmah2]

84. Politicians deserve the same protection that every citizen does.

They have to live and abide by the same rules and standards equally. Before politicians were elected, they were commoners as are you and I. Just ants on the hill. Are some animals (or bugs) more equal than others?

[GreenStormCloud]

9. You have never been to El Paso, have you?

I have, numerous times. It has its bad sections too, just like any major American city. Juarez is in another country and under that country's ultra-strict gun laws.

[Starboard Tack]

33. I have been to EP many times. At least 30.

The place is a fortress, with a huge LE population. It is nothing like any major American city, for many reasons. The first being that it is not a major American city. It is a border town on the edge of the richest nation, overlooking one of the saddest places in the western hemisphere. Of course, Juarez is in Mexico, and has nothing to do with the US, Texas or our gun laws.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. El Paso is the 22nd largest city in the U.S. That makes it a major U.S. city.

You are the one who brought up Juarez as if is somehow explained El Paso's low crime rate. Nor is it a fortress either. It is a major American city with more guns than people.

[Starboard Tack]

55. Sorry, number 22 hardly makes it major IMO

[GreenStormCloud]

58. How about Dallas then? Murder rate DROPPED for the seventh straight year.

Or will you try to claim that Dallas isn't a major city either? Dallas has the same gun laws as El Paso due to state pre-emption.

[Starboard Tack]

59. How about LA and NYC?

Murder rates aren't everything and remember "Have gun will travel". The reduction in violent crime, including murder, has much more to do with socio-economic issues, gang policing and local government programs, than any gun laws. Citing high and low stats in particular cities does give a clear picture of anything and there is no indication that expanded carry has changed the world for the better.

[gejohnston]

60. you are actually right

and culture and history. The better correlation is wealth inequality.
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level

As for liberalized carry having ill or good effects, they seem to based on econometric modeling, which is ummm
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm

[DonP]

11. Perhaps you'd like to $upport Rahm's "sane" solution?

He needs to make another payment next month on the McDonald court loss and the bill for losing the Ezell case will be coming up soon too. Even a small check from the "broad base" of gun control supporters here on DU will help.

The last check he had to write, with taxpayer money of course, was "only" $391,900 to the ISRA and Second Amendment Foundation IIRC. The next one should be close to that amount as well.

How about a check from each of your like minded friends for $10 with a short hand written personal note saying "We support your sane gun control solution Rahm", maybe one of his multiple armed bodyguards will hand the note to him? Come on, a sawbuck, that's less than a third of an NRA membership to prove you really believe in his "sane" solutions?

Or are you another gun control supporter that just posts angry screeds online as your "contribution" to supporting your beliefs?

[Starboard Tack]

34. I'm not anti-gun. I'm pro public safety.

Always interesting to see the NRA stooges come out and bash our Dem politicians. Let the mayors run their cities. That's what they are elected to do.

[DonP]

36. "bash our Dem politicians."! You better take a closer look at the guy you love so much.

Right now your "hero" "Dem Politician" Rahm is in the process of trying to bust the Chicago Teachers Union. They took a strike vote against him last week, with over 90% of the rank and file voting to go on strike.

He has refused to meet with the Firemen to start negotiating a new contract, justlike Daley did for five years.

Cops are now required to work overtime.

He's cutting pensions for city and county workers.

He just cut the pay and unilaterally amended the work rules for the electrical workers Union at McCormick place to try and raw more trade shows in.

He made $63 million in one year working for a big Wall Street firm.

"Pro public safety" - yeah that makes sense with 7 dead and 45 wounded every weekend with his gun control firmly in place.

Don't give me that simple minded shit that we can't "Bash Dem politicians" unless you can point to a solid union supporting track record.

"NRA Stooges" - well fuck you very much.

[gejohnston]

38. Not all Dems, just union busting

Last edited Fri Jun 22, 2012, 06:49 PM - Edit history (2)

and "gun grabber" types that push people in the middle to the dark side. Rahm is among the right leaning DLC types. If you want to see some real Dem bashing, mention Blue Dogs in the healthcare reform threads.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. I'm perfectly happy to bash Michael Bloomberg, as well.

Oddly enough, 'public safety' is his excuse for the 'stop and frisk' policy, as well as the NYPD's Demographic Unit (the "Muslim Squad&quot .

Looks like the ends justify any means, for some...

[Starboard Tack]

52. I don't support the "stop and frisk" policy or the "muslim squad"

They have nothing to do with trying to keep guns off the streets of NYC.

[MicaelS]

56. "Nothing to do with trying to keep guns off the streets of NYC."???

That is exactly what Bloomberg says the policy is designed to do.

Stop-and-Frisk Policy Saves Lives Mayor Tells Black Congregation

“If we stopped people based on census numbers, we would stop many fewer criminals, recover many fewer weapons and allow many more violent crimes to take place,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

“We will not do that,” he added. “We will not bury our heads in the sand.”

But Mr. Bloomberg said the policy was having an equally important effect by deterring people from carrying guns.

“By making it ‘too hot to carry,’ the N.Y.P.D. is preventing guns from being carried on our streets,” he said. “That is our real goal — preventing violence before it occurs, not responding to the victims after the fact.”

The fact is the Gun Prohibitionists favorite poster boy defends stop and frisk.

Of course it's just pure coincidence that the majority of those stopped are people of color. Just like it's pure coincidence that the wealthy and powerful in NYC have no problem getting a CCW permit, while the ordinary person is told they can't even have a gun in their own for self-defense. Of course the ordinary person in NYC should be denied having any guns. They're obviously too stupid to own a gun. Why, they might one day wake up and turn those guns on the 1% in NYC, and Bloomberg can't have that.

[Starboard Tack]

57. I think you understand little about NYC and it's residents' desire to be gun free.

As you quoted the mayor “If we stopped people based on census numbers, we would stop many fewer criminals, recover many fewer weapons and allow many more violent crimes to take place,” Mr. Bloomberg said.
Now, find me someone living there who agrees with you and you might have a point.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. I think you understand little about Kansas and it's residents' desire to be abortion free.

Don't care for that? How's about this one:

I think you understand little about California and it's residents' desire to be same-sex marriage free.

How far are you willing to take deference to the wishes of the majority?

[Starboard Tack]

64. As far as it doesn't interfere with public safety or individual rights.

It really wouldn't be that difficult to produce weapons of SD with the urban environment in mind. It's all about balance. Your analogies have nothing to do with public safety.

Do you think it would be fine to build nuclear reactors within city limits?

[gejohnston]

65. nuclear reactors are not among the individual rights

but to answer your question, I would prefer photoelectric panels on each roof.

[Starboard Tack]

71. Me too.

Though, I had a close call the other day with my PV system. My charge controller malfunctioned, blew a 30amp fuse and started an electrical fire under my bed. What a mess. No damage, fortunately, but cleaning that chemical powder up was a nightmare. I've ordered a new one, solid state this time.

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. Since even the dissenters in Heller admitted the 2A protects an individual right...

...and New York City does, in fact, issue CCW permits (albeit to the rich and/or well-connected) all citizens of NYC have the right to get one, if
not legally DQ'd.

It's not bad only when George Wallace or some fetus fetishist in Topeka does this sort of thing, it's bad when any politician does it.

[Starboard Tack]

82. Look I don't support CC or the issuing of permits.

Neither do I support restrictions. You want guns, have them. You want to carry them, carry them. I think those who carry are contributing to the problem, rather than fixing it. I believe in living by example. I don't want to live in that kind of world so I choose not to. Like many, I demonstrate that carrying a gun is not necessary to living a happy, peaceful life. The more guns around, the more likelihood of someone getting hurt. Bad karma all round.

[GreenStormCloud]

88. May your good luck continue.

I choose to be ready in case my luck runs out.

[Starboard Tack]

89. Good luck to you too.

If the day ever arrives when I decide to carry a gun, it will be because my luck has already run out.

[GreenStormCloud]

92. I respect your right to that choice, but not the choice itself. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

94. Ditto!

[Spoonman]

13. Sane? Now THAT'S funny!

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Insanity. n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.

The poor and under privileged of El Paso don't exist

Pick your poison above, because after that statement...........


Residents with income below the poverty level in 2009:

El Paso: 22.6%
Whole state: 17.2%

http://www.city-data.com/poverty/poverty-El-Paso-Texas.html#ixzz1yXCLXybz

safest large city for second year runing & # 2 best performing economy in the U.S.

El Paso, Texas ranked in the top spots for two national annual rankings in 2011: CQ Press’ Safest Large Cities list (El Paso ranked #1) and the Milken Institute’s Best- Performing Cities index (El Paso ranked #2). Both rankings are based on reports released in December 2011, which compare large metropolitan areas across the United States.

http://www.elpasoredco.org/news/el-paso-no-2-in-americas-best-performing-cities-among-200-largest-metros

[Starboard Tack]

35. Like carrying a gun every day and expecting different results? Is that sanity.

Sanity is about recognizing a problem and trying to fix it by actually doing something different.

[Spoonman]

42. LMAO

Sanity is having a firm grip on the reality of the world we live in.

So your saying that implementing more "bans" that clearly aren't working is somehow "doing something different"?

Maybe I need to get really stoned to understand that one!

please, just stop digging............ that hole is freaking deep enough!

[Starboard Tack]

45. Who's talking about bans?

I'm talking about restricting where folk can carry their guns, not banning anything. I don't believe in bans, but I do believe in safe zones for those who do not want to be part of the madness. We have smoke free zones, alcohol free zones, noise free zones, why not gun free zones. When you bring your guns into neighborhoods where people are trying to raise kids and get on with their lives, don't expect a big welcome.
Sanity is getting a grip on reality and if that reality is fucked up, changing it for the better. Add fuel to the fire is not the way to extinguish it. Do you really think the average Joe and Jill feel safer because now there are "law abiding" gun nuts walking the streets as well as gang bangers? Yeah, they're all laughing their asses off.

[GreenStormCloud]

77. Sometimes the results ARE different.

For years, every day you have had a fire extinguisher handy and it was never needed. The suddenly one day recently, you needed it in real hurry. Something was different that day. Similar with my gun. I carry it in case one day, things are different.

BTW - Yes, I have used my gun once. A few years ago I accompanied my wife to work. She was first at work. We arrived at a burglary in progress. I drew my .45 on the burglar. He dropped the stuff he was stealing, raised his hands, turned his back to me and walked away. I didn't shoot as he was now no threat to me. He was gone by the time the cops got there.

[Starboard Tack]

81. You did right. Good for you. If all behaved as well, we wouldn't have any argument.

[GreenStormCloud]

87. If I had not been armed, we would have been at the burglar's mercy.

As I have pointed out, many times, the Texas statistics demonstrate that almost all of the Texas CHLers behave just as well.

[Starboard Tack]

90. I think if you had not been armed, you would have used other options.

Such as a cellphone. Thankfully, your burglar was unarmed, as burglars tend to be.

[GreenStormCloud]

91. Police response time is NOT instantaneous.

While we were waiting for the call to connect the burglar would have had plenty of time to attack us and snatch the phone if he had wanted to. He was a young man and would have had no difficulty in overcoming a pair of old folks. Some of your self-defense suggestions are extremely unrealistic.

[Starboard Tack]

95. Well, of course, I wasn't there

I can only imagine what went down. My suggestions would have been along the following lines.
The moment you become aware of the intruder, back out, hopefully unnoticed, and use a cellphone from the safety of your vehicle or other place of refuge.
I'm curious as to how it got to the point of a confrontation that caused you to draw a weapon and point it. Sounds like your awareness antennae might not have been tuned in, which I find at odds with the fact that you carry. So, I'm a little confused.

[ileus]

6. They're working great now...but more bans are needed.

[Marinedem]

27. JUST ONE MORE LAW OUGHTA DO IT...

After all, they have all worked so well so far.

I mean, come on! Gangbangers will see how serious this is once the latest law is in place.

Follow that up with a gun buyback at the local stop and rob and I bet we won't see even one more gun murder in Chicago.

Of course all of those law abiding gun owners will continue to fuel gun crime by doing...something...

We might need a few more law ignoring Mayors though...

[Tejas]

30. Serfs, pay your taxes!

Why should he care, it's not his money.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

66. are the taxpayers being fairly represented? is this what those fair citizens want?

if not, isn't this approaching Taxation Without Representation...?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. I prefer change...

...but slow change. Without change there could be no progress. Slow change allows both sides of any issue to present to the courts and the people their best case positions. Harvard Law School has on its coat of arms the Latin word Veritas, meaning truth. Often important points are missed by officials and attorneys that are working in haste. Truth can be hidden by haste.

I don't particularly care for the lack of accountability among executives and, most particularly, legislators. Writing or voting for a law later found unconstitutional is not a good thing. These officials take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

I can both accept and appreciate the Mayor's efforts to make slow change. While I might not agree with the law, changing it in response to and to the degree required by the courts is not a bad idea.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Didn't like him in the White House.

Don't like him in Chicago. Fortunately, I don't live in Chicago.

"Rahm is unfit to represent Democrats in office. He's a cancer on the Democratic Party. Democrats' current 2010 situation is due to a weak Rahm Emanuel mentality that says water down real reform at the urging of Republicans and corporations, thus making Democratic reform less popular with voters than the real deal would have been. If Democrats had passed the overwhelmingly-popular public option and broken up the big banks when they had the chance, they'd be cruising for a landslide victory right now."

-Adam Green