|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 18, 2023 12:18:01 GMT -5
NYC had spot checks for concealed weapons. It worked. That is a matter of record. The practice was struck down, it could be struck up again. Call it stop and frisk, call it profiling, it works. And if the problem is judged severe enough by the people that have to live in the gun zone rather than ponder it from afar, and they want it, then do it.
The communities are organized and unified. They want the guns off the streets and the police back on. This is based on community polling. (Polling done by the StarTribune showed that Mpls blacks were opposed to defunding the police and supported a more active police presence on the streets. The voices of activists, many of whom are not in "the community", do not reflect the general population.)
And dollars to donuts, the vast majority of black youths would love to see gangs and guns both disappear... including a fair number that have found themselves in a gang and stuck in a gun eat gun world.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 18, 2023 14:07:45 GMT -5
Wasn't the stop and frisk ended by those who called it racial profiling?
|
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 18, 2023 14:54:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 18, 2023 15:30:22 GMT -5
The results of studies can depend on who doing the studying. The ACLU and others have their studies. Without leaving page one I came across this article doing a deeper dive into the statistics and studies concerning New York's Stop and Frisk in particular and Stop and Frisk in general. www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/crime-dropped-under-stop-frisk-which-worth-remembering-rush-criticize-ncna1151121It didn't reach a simplistic conclusion. I recall from past dives into profiling that if a study supplies a simple answer it is a simple study. And in social studies, what you want to find going in can influence what you end up with coming out the other end. Israel will see profiling as a useful tool based on their results, civil liberty outfits, based on their studies, will see profiling as an evil to be avoided. Evidence can and will be found to support either. I don't know what cities should do about gun battles in the street. Not my jurisdiction or problem. But, I do think troubled cities should have the power to decide for themselves who, if any, should be carrying handguns and how to police said decisions on the matter. Country folks, toney white suburbs, and the NRA need not weigh in on the matter. Not their problem. They live well away from the problem. And judges that live in safe isolated conclaves well out of the range of stray bullets and the troubles of the city should grant these cities the leniency to see what works and what doesn't in returning safety and sanity to their streets. Reasonable minds will differ on approaches that work and those that go to far. I give my vote on the matter to Marshall. And Marty. They are far closer to the issue than I am. |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 18, 2023 16:30:01 GMT -5
Hmph. Not long ago, this country mouse visited NYC--Brooklyn, to be precise. A few days after my visit, a young man on a scooter rode around Brooklyn and Queens, shooting at random with "a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun with an extended magazine." Three wounded, one killed. As an infrequent visitor (last time was more than 30 years ago), I suppose it's a matter of indifference to me what NYC's gun laws and enforcement policies are. After all, I wasn't even there during the scooter-shooter's spree. Not my neighborhood, not my problem. Or, as the guy in the Randy Newman song puts it, "I'm all right, so I don't care."
Local control works with local issues like zoning or speed limits or where to build the new event center, but when spree and gang and disturbed-ex-employee/spouse and political-nutjob shootings pop up in a wide range of environments, maybe it's worth thinking of something beyond the local.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jul 18, 2023 16:34:39 GMT -5
You want to do something about it? Vote Trump in 2024. Never vote for another Democrat. They can't fix it. If Trump isn't the nominee, the most conservative that is. You know better than what you've been doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 18, 2023 17:29:09 GMT -5
You want to do something about it? Vote Trump in 2024. Never vote for another Democrat. They can't won't fix it. If Trump isn't the nominee, the most conservative that is. You know better than what you've been doing. Fixed it for you. |
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jul 18, 2023 17:48:22 GMT -5
... I don't know what cities should do about gun battles in the street. Not my jurisdiction or problem. But, I do think troubled cities should have the power to decide for themselves who, if any, should be carrying handguns and how to police said decisions on the matter. Country folks, toney white suburbs, and the NRA need not weigh in on the matter. Not their problem. They live well away from the problem. And judges that live in safe isolated conclaves well out of the range of stray bullets and the troubles of the city should grant these cities the leniency to see what works and what doesn't in returning safety and sanity to their streets. ... At least one source of chicago guns is indiana. And indiana is, like you say, well away from the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 18, 2023 19:08:14 GMT -5
And Chicago enacted a handgun ban that could have helped stop the flow of Indiana guns into Chicago. And a cloistered Court living safely behind gates far from the problem overturned Chicago's attempt to ban concealed handguns. Courts did the same to NYC, DC, and St. Louis. Several cities have tried to get a grip on their handgun crisis only to have those living elsewhere far from the bullets stop them cold. Judge pickers, legislators, non-big city voters, and NRA types, all living far from the problem decide for them what they can do and can't do about handguns.
Let the hunters fill their gun racks with whatever they want. Let homeowners have their shotguns to protect their castle, but let these cities swamped with cheap handguns and beset with turf wars on the streets do what they think they need to do to get control over it, and if that means a ban on concealed weapons in the city, or illegal guns, whatever, let them have a go at it. They are ones living the mess.
The above is just a restatement of "...Country folks, toney white suburbs, and the NRA need not weigh in on the matter. Not their problem. They live well away from the problem. And judges that live in safe isolated conclaves well out of the range of stray bullets and the troubles of the city should grant these cities the leniency to see what works and what doesn't in returning safety and sanity to their streets".
Intelligently read in context, "not their problem" doesn't mean indifference, it means those that don't suffer from urban gun battles by dint of proximity (and money) have no business weighing in on what those that do suffer from it can or can't do about their problem. E.g., an NRA rancher in Wyoming is welcome to any rifle he wants and can decide for himself what coyotes to shoot and when, but he has no business inserting himself into Chicago's attempt to get control over gangbangers blasting away on their streets. And well-fed judges sitting in their cloistered chambers well removed from all nastiness should be forced to spend a couple months living in the 'hood before they consider what the second amendment means while sipping brandy and puffing on a fine cigar in their book-lined sanctuary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 18, 2023 19:35:35 GMT -5
I strongly suspect that the motives and sentiments of the New Yorker cartoon judges of Paul's portrait are probably pretty far from the actual motives and motivators that led to Heller, and especially not those of the various segments of the pro-gun lobby that have been pushing against any form of regulation of firearms for decades. What I see is hardened ideological thinking and hard-nosed commercial interests that together generate a let-'em-eat-cake callousness. Alito and Thomas in particular are determined to rewind the 21st century back to the 19th, with their delusional notions of Constitutional originalism. And the gun manufacturers (and the rest of the commercial environment they feed) are simply pursuing their own advantage.
Some baseline, national-level gun regulation is necessary for the same reason that air and water pollution controls are: the shit can flow anywhere, and it will.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 18, 2023 21:49:42 GMT -5
Well, how has that national gun control thing been working out?
Dump the national, go regional.
Country folk don't trust city folk. Never have. The NRA and the gun lobby has power in the red states and non-urban areas because the country folk flat out don't trust any gun legislation those liberal big city types come up with. They believe it is "give an inch they end up taking a mile". And they vote that way and the people they vote for pick judges that represent their views.
And those big city liberals are pissed at the country folk because they are throwing road blocks in everything they need to do, in this instance, handgun controls.
Both sides are wishing the other side would take a hike because each side suspects, with some justification, that the other side will screw them if they can. They want to outlaw guns one step at a time, stop that first step or they will run over us. They won't let us pass the simplest of sensible gun control measures, wish they would just disappear, go away.
So, forget national gun control. It won't happen, not as long as the electoral college exists and each state gets two senators.
So, go regional. Don't tell the country folk what they have to do and let the city folks do what they need to do. Country gets guns, city get handgun controls and strict measures to enforce them. Suburbs? Don't introduce complications. Stick with City and Country. But one size just won't fit all, so come up with different sizes.
Are my divisions simplistic and overly general? Yes, this is a guitar forum post, not a dissertation, book, or bill to be introduced next legislative session. And yes, there are big city liberals in the country and red state cowboys in the city. But, however you craft it, there is a split in this country and there is no national gun control legislation with teeth that can bridge it. That isn't a theory, that is an observation soundly based on... um, observation.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 18, 2023 22:05:34 GMT -5
And yes, theories are based on observation. I used "theory" in the colloquial, imprecise sense, as in, "well that's my guess for the moment, for what it's worth".
|
|
