Because of no right to own firearms...

[Uncensored2008]

Nice try, but magic eight ball says try again. And you in the back of your mind, you already know that.

The magic eight ball isn't what governs this country. The Constitution says "shall not be infringed."

Nice one. And what does it mean? And exactly what does Shall Not be Infringed Mean? Exactly what shall not be infringed? Does that mean I can have Nuclear Weapons if I want them? Or how about some nice friendly Pipe Bombs. Or maybe a case of Bazooka rockets along with a Bazooka. No telling when I might be attacked by a squirrel that is armed with a Mini Gun.

You commies are some dumb motherfuckers.

Can you "bear" a nuclear weapon?

If you can't easily carry it on your person, it isn't covered Comrade.

Sure I could. Ever hear of a Suitcase Nuke? They Feds lay awake at night in fear of missing one of those little nasty things. It's gotten so it's impossible to sneak one of those into the US. While the yield would be low, it would still be good enough to vaporize about a 4 blocks square area and radiate a couple of miles. These little jewels are the reason we have military sniffer planes over all the major cities today. Every once in awhile one of those birds make the news and are quickly forgotten about. And those weapons are very portable, the size of a medium sized samsonite suitcase. How many people in a major city are walking around with a suitcase near a Hotel, Bus Station, Air Port and other places? Would a person carrying that nuke be suitcase nuke even be questioned unless one of the sniffers detected them? But if we use the phrase the way you keep using it "shall not be infringed" it is the right of every citizen of the United States to possess and carry a suitcase nuke under the 2nd amendment.

You Stalinists need some new talking points.

Comrade, there is no such thing as a suitcase nuke, it is purely hypothetical - science fiction.

{A suitcase nuclear device (also suitcase bomb, backpack nuke, mini-nuke and pocket nuke) is a hypothetical tactical nuclear weapon that is portable enough that it could use a suitcase as its delivery method.}

Suitcase nuclear device - Wikipedia

Thing is Comrade, nukes are radioactive. You can't carry them around, the radiation will kill you - moron.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

OMG. Ignorance abounds. It's fairly safe to say you've never fucking been there, too.
You're five times more likely to be a victim of homicide in the U.S. than Europe.
And guns are the weapon of choice according to the FBI.
37,000 gun murders versus 1600 knives. Not a typo:
Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

wrong....in 2016 there were 11,004 gun murders.

in 2016 there were 489 accidental gun deaths.

How do you get to 37,000? And even then you can't because if you throw in suicides it still doesn't get you there.....

And at the same time Americans used their legal guns 2.4 million times each year to stop violent criminals, according to the CDC, and as more Americans own and carry guns our gun crime rate has gone down, not up...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

And what City has caused those figures to drop? NYC. And how have they done that? They increased funding and public involvement in their Police Forces. It was done not by getting more civilian guns on the streets. It was done by getting more Criminal Guns off the streets by law enforcement. More Guns have never been the answer. The Answer has always been better Police and more public involvement. You gun nutters don't want to spend taxes for that since it would be a Democratic method and solution since it would require increasing taxes. And that would be, as you call it, a Socialist move. It's not socialist, it's just a fact of life that we need to spend money for a better police presence along with better training. But that would get in the way of your "More Guns" routine.

Wrong..... again.

It was done by Guilliani and they are living off of the techniques he used.....and since our gun murder rate in this country dropped 49%, and our gun crime rate dropped 75% as more Americans bought, and carried guns, law abiding citizens carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate....

The democrats are the ones releasing violent criminals back onto the streets you doofus....and de blasio is setting up the city to go back to the bad old days before Guilliani....

Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop

New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.

The degree of demographic change is startling.

In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.

In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.

In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.


This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.

A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.

Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.

When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)

----

The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decade.

I didn't state that any one Mayor over another. Your statement of "Wrong" is just plain wrong. If you wish to give Guliani the credit, that's fine by me. But it's been a long haul that took one of the murder capitals of the world and dropped it from that list. They did it through raised taxes, more cops on the street and beats, better training and working closer with the communities. You stated that high tech is moving into a once high crime area. Why is that? The City got rid of most of the crime and that left a large pool of workers that could be used. And that is how you defeat crime. Not by putting "More Guns" on the street.

The Other Cities need to follow suit. But first, they need to find the funding to do it. NYC is a special case. There is a lot of money there and places where they could raise taxes to gain those funds and that is exactly what they did. All the meanwhile, your bunch screamed, "You lousy Socialists" at them. They are getting results no matter who originated it.

More guns on the streets don't work in high crime areas. More cops on the corner does.

Comrade; you who seek to end civil rights demand that only police should be allowed to have guns. Does that mean that the police are safer with guns? I mean, are there LESS incidents of accidental shootings and gun violence with police than there are among the peasants?

I await your response....

You got a very long wait.

 

[Rustic]

Rural America is awash with firearms... And violent crime is pretty much nonexistent.
Because of the firearm ownership... legally

Yes, every cow, pig, and chicken has a gun. The only thing Rural America lacks in is people.

Comrade, I've never seen a chicken fire a gun.

You wouldn't lie in you quest to end civil rights, would you?

Hey, I am not the one that said that guns were everywhere in rural America. If there were that many guns in rural America then Chickens would be armed heavily and hunting the ducks.

You obviously have not been in rural America, Most everybody has a gun cabinet full of guns

I spent the first 19 years of my life on Ranches. I worked as a Ranch Hand, Irrigator, Ditch Rider, Fence Rider and more. My first firearm that was my own was a 12 gauge when I was 12. Dad told me when I could shoot it I could have others. The next one was a 22. Then the next one was a Military Surplus 1946 British Enfield Smelly 303 that I used for hunting for the next 20 years or so. We didn't have walk in closets full of guns. We had gun racks in the living room with only a few guns that belonged to each family member. Each of us usually only owned one rifle, one shot gun and maybe a handgun. When we left the home our handful of guns left with us. Sorry, but each firearm had a purpose and that purpose usually was to put meat on the table or to bag unwanted Coyotes. The 22 rifle was usually handed down to the next generation but the shotguns and rifles stayed with the person. We were too busy working to worry about taking over the Government by force.

Firearm ownership is a personal thing, none of the federal government’s business

 

[Uncensored2008]

wrong....in 2016 there were 11,004 gun murders.

in 2016 there were 489 accidental gun deaths.

How do you get to 37,000? And even then you can't because if you throw in suicides it still doesn't get you there.....

And at the same time Americans used their legal guns 2.4 million times each year to stop violent criminals, according to the CDC, and as more Americans own and carry guns our gun crime rate has gone down, not up...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

And what City has caused those figures to drop? NYC. And how have they done that? They increased funding and public involvement in their Police Forces. It was done not by getting more civilian guns on the streets. It was done by getting more Criminal Guns off the streets by law enforcement. More Guns have never been the answer. The Answer has always been better Police and more public involvement. You gun nutters don't want to spend taxes for that since it would be a Democratic method and solution since it would require increasing taxes. And that would be, as you call it, a Socialist move. It's not socialist, it's just a fact of life that we need to spend money for a better police presence along with better training. But that would get in the way of your "More Guns" routine.

Wrong..... again.

It was done by Guilliani and they are living off of the techniques he used.....and since our gun murder rate in this country dropped 49%, and our gun crime rate dropped 75% as more Americans bought, and carried guns, law abiding citizens carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate....

The democrats are the ones releasing violent criminals back onto the streets you doofus....and de blasio is setting up the city to go back to the bad old days before Guilliani....

Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop

New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.

The degree of demographic change is startling.

In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.

In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.

In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.


This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.

A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.

Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.

When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)

----

The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decade.

I didn't state that any one Mayor over another. Your statement of "Wrong" is just plain wrong. If you wish to give Guliani the credit, that's fine by me. But it's been a long haul that took one of the murder capitals of the world and dropped it from that list. They did it through raised taxes, more cops on the street and beats, better training and working closer with the communities. You stated that high tech is moving into a once high crime area. Why is that? The City got rid of most of the crime and that left a large pool of workers that could be used. And that is how you defeat crime. Not by putting "More Guns" on the street.

The Other Cities need to follow suit. But first, they need to find the funding to do it. NYC is a special case. There is a lot of money there and places where they could raise taxes to gain those funds and that is exactly what they did. All the meanwhile, your bunch screamed, "You lousy Socialists" at them. They are getting results no matter who originated it.

More guns on the streets don't work in high crime areas. More cops on the corner does.

Comrade; you who seek to end civil rights demand that only police should be allowed to have guns. Does that mean that the police are safer with guns? I mean, are there LESS incidents of accidental shootings and gun violence with police than there are among the peasants?

I await your response....

You got a very long wait.

We all know the answer, which is why Stalinist thugs like you run from the question.

Though only one half of one percent of the population, sworn law enforcement make about about 12% of all firearm accidents.

As for violence, well I hope you turn to the police for protection.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nice try, but magic eight ball says try again. And you in the back of your mind, you already know that.

The magic eight ball isn't what governs this country. The Constitution says "shall not be infringed."

Nice one. And what does it mean? And exactly what does Shall Not be Infringed Mean? Exactly what shall not be infringed? Does that mean I can have Nuclear Weapons if I want them? Or how about some nice friendly Pipe Bombs. Or maybe a case of Bazooka rockets along with a Bazooka. No telling when I might be attacked by a squirrel that is armed with a Mini Gun.

You commies are some dumb motherfuckers.

Can you "bear" a nuclear weapon?

If you can't easily carry it on your person, it isn't covered Comrade.

Sure I could. Ever hear of a Suitcase Nuke? They Feds lay awake at night in fear of missing one of those little nasty things. It's gotten so it's impossible to sneak one of those into the US. While the yield would be low, it would still be good enough to vaporize about a 4 blocks square area and radiate a couple of miles. These little jewels are the reason we have military sniffer planes over all the major cities today. Every once in awhile one of those birds make the news and are quickly forgotten about. And those weapons are very portable, the size of a medium sized samsonite suitcase. How many people in a major city are walking around with a suitcase near a Hotel, Bus Station, Air Port and other places? Would a person carrying that nuke be suitcase nuke even be questioned unless one of the sniffers detected them? But if we use the phrase the way you keep using it "shall not be infringed" it is the right of every citizen of the United States to possess and carry a suitcase nuke under the 2nd amendment.

You Stalinists need some new talking points.

Comrade, there is no such thing as a suitcase nuke, it is purely hypothetical - science fiction.

{A suitcase nuclear device (also suitcase bomb, backpack nuke, mini-nuke and pocket nuke) is a hypothetical tactical nuclear weapon that is portable enough that it could use a suitcase as its delivery method.}

Suitcase nuclear device - Wikipedia

Thing is Comrade, nukes are radioactive. You can't carry them around, the radiation will kill you - moron.

From your own Cite
Carey Sublette stated that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union have ever made public the existence or development of weapons small enough to fit into a normal-sized suitcase or briefcase. The W48 however, does fit the criteria of small, easily disguised and portable.

Anyone that wants to carry something around like that really doesnt' care about their own healthy nor anyone else's health. Now, if you were take the same warhead and put it in a foot locker with the extra size being shielding then it would actually be quite safe as long as you didn't ride it with your crotch. And again, using the same logic your bunch is using, I should have the right to have it because you stopping me would be in violation of the 2nd amendment right. You would be infringing on my 2nd amendment right.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yes, every cow, pig, and chicken has a gun. The only thing Rural America lacks in is people.

Comrade, I've never seen a chicken fire a gun.

You wouldn't lie in you quest to end civil rights, would you?

Hey, I am not the one that said that guns were everywhere in rural America. If there were that many guns in rural America then Chickens would be armed heavily and hunting the ducks.

You obviously have not been in rural America, Most everybody has a gun cabinet full of guns

I spent the first 19 years of my life on Ranches. I worked as a Ranch Hand, Irrigator, Ditch Rider, Fence Rider and more. My first firearm that was my own was a 12 gauge when I was 12. Dad told me when I could shoot it I could have others. The next one was a 22. Then the next one was a Military Surplus 1946 British Enfield Smelly 303 that I used for hunting for the next 20 years or so. We didn't have walk in closets full of guns. We had gun racks in the living room with only a few guns that belonged to each family member. Each of us usually only owned one rifle, one shot gun and maybe a handgun. When we left the home our handful of guns left with us. Sorry, but each firearm had a purpose and that purpose usually was to put meat on the table or to bag unwanted Coyotes. The 22 rifle was usually handed down to the next generation but the shotguns and rifles stayed with the person. We were too busy working to worry about taking over the Government by force.

Firearm ownership is a personal thing, none of the federal government’s business

Why can't I have a Jeep with a Mah Duece loaded on it? That is what you are saying.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Comrade, I've never seen a chicken fire a gun.

You wouldn't lie in you quest to end civil rights, would you?

Hey, I am not the one that said that guns were everywhere in rural America. If there were that many guns in rural America then Chickens would be armed heavily and hunting the ducks.

You obviously have not been in rural America, Most everybody has a gun cabinet full of guns

I spent the first 19 years of my life on Ranches. I worked as a Ranch Hand, Irrigator, Ditch Rider, Fence Rider and more. My first firearm that was my own was a 12 gauge when I was 12. Dad told me when I could shoot it I could have others. The next one was a 22. Then the next one was a Military Surplus 1946 British Enfield Smelly 303 that I used for hunting for the next 20 years or so. We didn't have walk in closets full of guns. We had gun racks in the living room with only a few guns that belonged to each family member. Each of us usually only owned one rifle, one shot gun and maybe a handgun. When we left the home our handful of guns left with us. Sorry, but each firearm had a purpose and that purpose usually was to put meat on the table or to bag unwanted Coyotes. The 22 rifle was usually handed down to the next generation but the shotguns and rifles stayed with the person. We were too busy working to worry about taking over the Government by force.

Firearm ownership is a personal thing, none of the federal government’s business

Why can't I have a Jeep with a Mah Duece loaded on it? That is what you are saying.

Tell you what Comrade, you pick that jeep up and carry it a mile and we'll make an exception for you...

Seriously, you Totalitarians have GOT to get some new lies. These old ones have been defeated so many times that the only thing to do is mock your commie ass.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Hey, I am not the one that said that guns were everywhere in rural America. If there were that many guns in rural America then Chickens would be armed heavily and hunting the ducks.

You obviously have not been in rural America, Most everybody has a gun cabinet full of guns

I spent the first 19 years of my life on Ranches. I worked as a Ranch Hand, Irrigator, Ditch Rider, Fence Rider and more. My first firearm that was my own was a 12 gauge when I was 12. Dad told me when I could shoot it I could have others. The next one was a 22. Then the next one was a Military Surplus 1946 British Enfield Smelly 303 that I used for hunting for the next 20 years or so. We didn't have walk in closets full of guns. We had gun racks in the living room with only a few guns that belonged to each family member. Each of us usually only owned one rifle, one shot gun and maybe a handgun. When we left the home our handful of guns left with us. Sorry, but each firearm had a purpose and that purpose usually was to put meat on the table or to bag unwanted Coyotes. The 22 rifle was usually handed down to the next generation but the shotguns and rifles stayed with the person. We were too busy working to worry about taking over the Government by force.

Firearm ownership is a personal thing, none of the federal government’s business

Why can't I have a Jeep with a Mah Duece loaded on it? That is what you are saying.

Tell you what Comrade, you pick that jeep up and carry it a mile and we'll make an exception for you...

Seriously, you Totalitarians have GOT to get some new lies. These old ones have been defeated so many times that the only thing to do is mock your commie ass.

Ah, move the goalposts once again. The 2nd amendment doesn't say I have to be able to carry it. It simply states that my rights to a firearm shall not be infringed. And a Jeep Mounted M-2 is definitely a firearm. Are you placing limits on what can and can't be owned? If you are then you saying that there are limits and someone or something must be able to spell out those limits. Should be elevate you to the position to determine those limits for everyone? Would you accept that position?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The cesspool that is Western Europe...

Home Secretary Sajid Javid reveals how he was a moped mugging victim as he launches battle to beat villains

Less than one in 20 street robberies are being solved by police | Daily Mail Online

OMG. Ignorance abounds. It's fairly safe to say you've never fucking been there, too.
You're five times more likely to be a victim of homicide in the U.S. than Europe.
And guns are the weapon of choice according to the FBI.
37,000 gun murders versus 1600 knives. Not a typo:
Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

wrong....in 2016 there were 11,004 gun murders.

in 2016 there were 489 accidental gun deaths.

How do you get to 37,000? And even then you can't because if you throw in suicides it still doesn't get you there.....

And at the same time Americans used their legal guns 2.4 million times each year to stop violent criminals, according to the CDC, and as more Americans own and carry guns our gun crime rate has gone down, not up...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

And what City has caused those figures to drop? NYC. And how have they done that? They increased funding and public involvement in their Police Forces. It was done not by getting more civilian guns on the streets. It was done by getting more Criminal Guns off the streets by law enforcement. More Guns have never been the answer. The Answer has always been better Police and more public involvement. You gun nutters don't want to spend taxes for that since it would be a Democratic method and solution since it would require increasing taxes. And that would be, as you call it, a Socialist move. It's not socialist, it's just a fact of life that we need to spend money for a better police presence along with better training. But that would get in the way of your "More Guns" routine.

Wrong..... again.

It was done by Guilliani and they are living off of the techniques he used.....and since our gun murder rate in this country dropped 49%, and our gun crime rate dropped 75% as more Americans bought, and carried guns, law abiding citizens carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate....

The democrats are the ones releasing violent criminals back onto the streets you doofus....and de blasio is setting up the city to go back to the bad old days before Guilliani....

Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop

New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.

The degree of demographic change is startling.

In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.

In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.

In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.


This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.

A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.

Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.

When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)

----

The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decade.

I didn't state that any one Mayor over another. Your statement of "Wrong" is just plain wrong. If you wish to give Guliani the credit, that's fine by me. But it's been a long haul that took one of the murder capitals of the world and dropped it from that list. They did it through raised taxes, more cops on the street and beats, better training and working closer with the communities. You stated that high tech is moving into a once high crime area. Why is that? The City got rid of most of the crime and that left a large pool of workers that could be used. And that is how you defeat crime. Not by putting "More Guns" on the street.

The Other Cities need to follow suit. But first, they need to find the funding to do it. NYC is a special case. There is a lot of money there and places where they could raise taxes to gain those funds and that is exactly what they did. All the meanwhile, your bunch screamed, "You lousy Socialists" at them. They are getting results no matter who originated it.

More guns on the streets don't work in high crime areas. More cops on the corner does.

And what are the hell hole democratic cities doing other then New York? Cutting police funding, gutting police policy and letting firearms criminals out of jail early.

 

[2aguy]

You obviously have not been in rural America, Most everybody has a gun cabinet full of guns

I spent the first 19 years of my life on Ranches. I worked as a Ranch Hand, Irrigator, Ditch Rider, Fence Rider and more. My first firearm that was my own was a 12 gauge when I was 12. Dad told me when I could shoot it I could have others. The next one was a 22. Then the next one was a Military Surplus 1946 British Enfield Smelly 303 that I used for hunting for the next 20 years or so. We didn't have walk in closets full of guns. We had gun racks in the living room with only a few guns that belonged to each family member. Each of us usually only owned one rifle, one shot gun and maybe a handgun. When we left the home our handful of guns left with us. Sorry, but each firearm had a purpose and that purpose usually was to put meat on the table or to bag unwanted Coyotes. The 22 rifle was usually handed down to the next generation but the shotguns and rifles stayed with the person. We were too busy working to worry about taking over the Government by force.

Firearm ownership is a personal thing, none of the federal government’s business

Why can't I have a Jeep with a Mah Duece loaded on it? That is what you are saying.

Tell you what Comrade, you pick that jeep up and carry it a mile and we'll make an exception for you...

Seriously, you Totalitarians have GOT to get some new lies. These old ones have been defeated so many times that the only thing to do is mock your commie ass.

Ah, move the goalposts once again. The 2nd amendment doesn't say I have to be able to carry it. It simply states that my rights to a firearm shall not be infringed. And a Jeep Mounted M-2 is definitely a firearm. Are you placing limits on what can and can't be owned? If you are then you saying that there are limits and someone or something must be able to spell out those limits. Should be elevate you to the position to determine those limits for everyone? Would you accept that position?

D.C v Heller...you should read it. "To Keep and Bear...." Do you know what "Bear" means?

All bearable arms are protected, as written in D.C v Heller.

 

[2aguy]

The cesspool that is Western Europe...

Home Secretary Sajid Javid reveals how he was a moped mugging victim as he launches battle to beat villains

Less than one in 20 street robberies are being solved by police | Daily Mail Online

OMG. Ignorance abounds. It's fairly safe to say you've never fucking been there, too.
You're five times more likely to be a victim of homicide in the U.S. than Europe.
And guns are the weapon of choice according to the FBI.
37,000 gun murders versus 1600 knives. Not a typo:
Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

wrong....in 2016 there were 11,004 gun murders.

in 2016 there were 489 accidental gun deaths.

How do you get to 37,000? And even then you can't because if you throw in suicides it still doesn't get you there.....

And at the same time Americans used their legal guns 2.4 million times each year to stop violent criminals, according to the CDC, and as more Americans own and carry guns our gun crime rate has gone down, not up...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

And what City has caused those figures to drop? NYC. And how have they done that? They increased funding and public involvement in their Police Forces. It was done not by getting more civilian guns on the streets. It was done by getting more Criminal Guns off the streets by law enforcement. More Guns have never been the answer. The Answer has always been better Police and more public involvement. You gun nutters don't want to spend taxes for that since it would be a Democratic method and solution since it would require increasing taxes. And that would be, as you call it, a Socialist move. It's not socialist, it's just a fact of life that we need to spend money for a better police presence along with better training. But that would get in the way of your "More Guns" routine.

Wrong..... again.

It was done by Guilliani and they are living off of the techniques he used.....and since our gun murder rate in this country dropped 49%, and our gun crime rate dropped 75% as more Americans bought, and carried guns, law abiding citizens carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate....

The democrats are the ones releasing violent criminals back onto the streets you doofus....and de blasio is setting up the city to go back to the bad old days before Guilliani....

Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop

New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.

The degree of demographic change is startling.

In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.

In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.

In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.


This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.

A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.

Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.

When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)

----

The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decade.

I didn't state that any one Mayor over another. Your statement of "Wrong" is just plain wrong. If you wish to give Guliani the credit, that's fine by me. But it's been a long haul that took one of the murder capitals of the world and dropped it from that list. They did it through raised taxes, more cops on the street and beats, better training and working closer with the communities. You stated that high tech is moving into a once high crime area. Why is that? The City got rid of most of the crime and that left a large pool of workers that could be used. And that is how you defeat crime. Not by putting "More Guns" on the street.

The Other Cities need to follow suit. But first, they need to find the funding to do it. NYC is a special case. There is a lot of money there and places where they could raise taxes to gain those funds and that is exactly what they did. All the meanwhile, your bunch screamed, "You lousy Socialists" at them. They are getting results no matter who originated it.

More guns on the streets don't work in high crime areas. More cops on the corner does.

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens doesn't increase the crime rate, doofus. More Americans owning and carrying guns led to a drop in the gun crime rate of 75%....the gun murder rate dropped 49%....the violent crime rate dropped 72%......

Letting violent gun criminals out of jail drives the gun crime rate.....and New York used to have stop and Frisk...they got rid of that...... as de blasio ends all of the policies that worked, the crime rate in New York is going to go up...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I spent the first 19 years of my life on Ranches. I worked as a Ranch Hand, Irrigator, Ditch Rider, Fence Rider and more. My first firearm that was my own was a 12 gauge when I was 12. Dad told me when I could shoot it I could have others. The next one was a 22. Then the next one was a Military Surplus 1946 British Enfield Smelly 303 that I used for hunting for the next 20 years or so. We didn't have walk in closets full of guns. We had gun racks in the living room with only a few guns that belonged to each family member. Each of us usually only owned one rifle, one shot gun and maybe a handgun. When we left the home our handful of guns left with us. Sorry, but each firearm had a purpose and that purpose usually was to put meat on the table or to bag unwanted Coyotes. The 22 rifle was usually handed down to the next generation but the shotguns and rifles stayed with the person. We were too busy working to worry about taking over the Government by force.

Firearm ownership is a personal thing, none of the federal government’s business

Why can't I have a Jeep with a Mah Duece loaded on it? That is what you are saying.

Tell you what Comrade, you pick that jeep up and carry it a mile and we'll make an exception for you...

Seriously, you Totalitarians have GOT to get some new lies. These old ones have been defeated so many times that the only thing to do is mock your commie ass.

Ah, move the goalposts once again. The 2nd amendment doesn't say I have to be able to carry it. It simply states that my rights to a firearm shall not be infringed. And a Jeep Mounted M-2 is definitely a firearm. Are you placing limits on what can and can't be owned? If you are then you saying that there are limits and someone or something must be able to spell out those limits. Should be elevate you to the position to determine those limits for everyone? Would you accept that position?

D.C v Heller...you should read it. "To Keep and Bear...." Do you know what "Bear" means?

All bearable arms are protected, as written in D.C v Heller.

And what firearms does it mean? Who makes the determination?

The Definition of Bear is to Transport or carry. And if I mount a M-2 50 Cal Automatic on top of a Jeep then I am transporting it. Therefore, I am bearing my Firearm. You will need to rewrite all the dictionaries definitions if you wish to limit the word "Bear" to just "Carry". I can go even further and "Transport" an Artillery Piece. Does that mean that I have the right to roll one down the highway? And, again, who makes this determination? Do you reserve the right to make that determination only to your group? Or can anyone play?

You seem to want to place limits on me yet you don't want any limits placed on you. Funny how that works.

 

[2aguy]

Firearm ownership is a personal thing, none of the federal government’s business

Why can't I have a Jeep with a Mah Duece loaded on it? That is what you are saying.

Tell you what Comrade, you pick that jeep up and carry it a mile and we'll make an exception for you...

Seriously, you Totalitarians have GOT to get some new lies. These old ones have been defeated so many times that the only thing to do is mock your commie ass.

Ah, move the goalposts once again. The 2nd amendment doesn't say I have to be able to carry it. It simply states that my rights to a firearm shall not be infringed. And a Jeep Mounted M-2 is definitely a firearm. Are you placing limits on what can and can't be owned? If you are then you saying that there are limits and someone or something must be able to spell out those limits. Should be elevate you to the position to determine those limits for everyone? Would you accept that position?

D.C v Heller...you should read it. "To Keep and Bear...." Do you know what "Bear" means?

All bearable arms are protected, as written in D.C v Heller.

And what firearms does it mean? Who makes the determination?

The Definition of Bear is to Transport or carry. And if I mount a M-2 50 Cal Automatic on top of a Jeep then I am transporting it. Therefore, I am bearing my Firearm. You will need to rewrite all the dictionaries definitions if you wish to limit the word "Bear" to just "Carry". I can go even further and "Transport" an Artillery Piece. Does that mean that I have the right to roll one down the highway? And, again, who makes this determination? Do you reserve the right to make that determination only to your group? Or can anyone play?

You seem to want to place limits on me yet you don't want any limits placed on you. Funny how that works.

Read D.C. v Heller, and Caetano v Massachusetts....they explain it for you......you can also read Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park where he states that AR-15s are specifically protected by the Heller decision......

That would be a start for your education.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

OMG. Ignorance abounds. It's fairly safe to say you've never fucking been there, too.
You're five times more likely to be a victim of homicide in the U.S. than Europe.
And guns are the weapon of choice according to the FBI.
37,000 gun murders versus 1600 knives. Not a typo:
Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

wrong....in 2016 there were 11,004 gun murders.

in 2016 there were 489 accidental gun deaths.

How do you get to 37,000? And even then you can't because if you throw in suicides it still doesn't get you there.....

And at the same time Americans used their legal guns 2.4 million times each year to stop violent criminals, according to the CDC, and as more Americans own and carry guns our gun crime rate has gone down, not up...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

And what City has caused those figures to drop? NYC. And how have they done that? They increased funding and public involvement in their Police Forces. It was done not by getting more civilian guns on the streets. It was done by getting more Criminal Guns off the streets by law enforcement. More Guns have never been the answer. The Answer has always been better Police and more public involvement. You gun nutters don't want to spend taxes for that since it would be a Democratic method and solution since it would require increasing taxes. And that would be, as you call it, a Socialist move. It's not socialist, it's just a fact of life that we need to spend money for a better police presence along with better training. But that would get in the way of your "More Guns" routine.

Wrong..... again.

It was done by Guilliani and they are living off of the techniques he used.....and since our gun murder rate in this country dropped 49%, and our gun crime rate dropped 75% as more Americans bought, and carried guns, law abiding citizens carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate....

The democrats are the ones releasing violent criminals back onto the streets you doofus....and de blasio is setting up the city to go back to the bad old days before Guilliani....

Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop

New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.

The degree of demographic change is startling.

In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.

In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.

In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.


This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.

A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.

Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.

When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)

----

The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decade.

I didn't state that any one Mayor over another. Your statement of "Wrong" is just plain wrong. If you wish to give Guliani the credit, that's fine by me. But it's been a long haul that took one of the murder capitals of the world and dropped it from that list. They did it through raised taxes, more cops on the street and beats, better training and working closer with the communities. You stated that high tech is moving into a once high crime area. Why is that? The City got rid of most of the crime and that left a large pool of workers that could be used. And that is how you defeat crime. Not by putting "More Guns" on the street.

The Other Cities need to follow suit. But first, they need to find the funding to do it. NYC is a special case. There is a lot of money there and places where they could raise taxes to gain those funds and that is exactly what they did. All the meanwhile, your bunch screamed, "You lousy Socialists" at them. They are getting results no matter who originated it.

More guns on the streets don't work in high crime areas. More cops on the corner does.

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens doesn't increase the crime rate, doofus. More Americans owning and carrying guns led to a drop in the gun crime rate of 75%....the gun murder rate dropped 49%....the violent crime rate dropped 72%......

Letting violent gun criminals out of jail drives the gun crime rate.....and New York used to have stop and Frisk...they got rid of that...... as de blasio ends all of the policies that worked, the crime rate in New York is going to go up...

Or is it that they are spending less money on law enforcement and community action that has worked quite well in the past?

Actually, in 2017, the violent crime went down in NYC. It's now down to the 1950s level. And that is under DeBlacio. The programs that were setup under past mayors are working and working well. Stop lying.

Crime in New York City Plunges to a Level Not Seen Since the 1950s

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Why can't I have a Jeep with a Mah Duece loaded on it? That is what you are saying.

Tell you what Comrade, you pick that jeep up and carry it a mile and we'll make an exception for you...

Seriously, you Totalitarians have GOT to get some new lies. These old ones have been defeated so many times that the only thing to do is mock your commie ass.

Ah, move the goalposts once again. The 2nd amendment doesn't say I have to be able to carry it. It simply states that my rights to a firearm shall not be infringed. And a Jeep Mounted M-2 is definitely a firearm. Are you placing limits on what can and can't be owned? If you are then you saying that there are limits and someone or something must be able to spell out those limits. Should be elevate you to the position to determine those limits for everyone? Would you accept that position?

D.C v Heller...you should read it. "To Keep and Bear...." Do you know what "Bear" means?

All bearable arms are protected, as written in D.C v Heller.

And what firearms does it mean? Who makes the determination?

The Definition of Bear is to Transport or carry. And if I mount a M-2 50 Cal Automatic on top of a Jeep then I am transporting it. Therefore, I am bearing my Firearm. You will need to rewrite all the dictionaries definitions if you wish to limit the word "Bear" to just "Carry". I can go even further and "Transport" an Artillery Piece. Does that mean that I have the right to roll one down the highway? And, again, who makes this determination? Do you reserve the right to make that determination only to your group? Or can anyone play?

You seem to want to place limits on me yet you don't want any limits placed on you. Funny how that works.

Read D.C. v Heller, and Caetano v Massachusetts....they explain it for you......you can also read Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park where he states that AR-15s are specifically protected by the Heller decision......

That would be a start for your education.

Caetano v Massachusetts just refers back to DC V Heller, nothing more. And if you just use Heller, it only applies to handguns in the homes. Sounds pretty limiting to me.

The Petition to overturn the lower court ruling supporting the Highland Park law was not overturned. It was refused to be heard by the Supreme Court so the lower court ruling in favor of Highland Park stood. The Law specifically singles out (and it names it) the AR style weapons that can accept high capacity mags. The Courts used Heller in that it only applied to Handguns and did not apply to the AR style weapons.

Again, a dissenting view is NOT the part that means anything at all legally. It's just one persons opinion. I have my opinion, you have yours and Scalia and Thomas has theirs. The fact that there was a ruling of 5 to 4 to not hear the case is all that counts. The Highland Park Law stands and it's deem constitutional.

I asked who was to make the determination on what was and what wasn't legal. Well, thank you for leading up to this once again. How's it feel to have that ring in your nose. It's not up to me nor you. It's up to Congress and the Supreme Court. I find that the 2nd amendment is too ambiguous. Since Congress won't fix that, it means the Supreme Court will and they have many times. And the court system will continue to do Congresses job since they refuse to do so since it might cost them elections.

Thomas and Scalia didn't really find that big a fault in the case, they weren't worried about the "Rights". They were worried about how many ARs were out there and the impact it might have on the society as a whole. I'll say it again, if you don't like the laws where you are living and see a place that you like the laws better, stop bitching and move.

 

[2aguy]

wrong....in 2016 there were 11,004 gun murders.

in 2016 there were 489 accidental gun deaths.

How do you get to 37,000? And even then you can't because if you throw in suicides it still doesn't get you there.....

And at the same time Americans used their legal guns 2.4 million times each year to stop violent criminals, according to the CDC, and as more Americans own and carry guns our gun crime rate has gone down, not up...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

And what City has caused those figures to drop? NYC. And how have they done that? They increased funding and public involvement in their Police Forces. It was done not by getting more civilian guns on the streets. It was done by getting more Criminal Guns off the streets by law enforcement. More Guns have never been the answer. The Answer has always been better Police and more public involvement. You gun nutters don't want to spend taxes for that since it would be a Democratic method and solution since it would require increasing taxes. And that would be, as you call it, a Socialist move. It's not socialist, it's just a fact of life that we need to spend money for a better police presence along with better training. But that would get in the way of your "More Guns" routine.

Wrong..... again.

It was done by Guilliani and they are living off of the techniques he used.....and since our gun murder rate in this country dropped 49%, and our gun crime rate dropped 75% as more Americans bought, and carried guns, law abiding citizens carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate....

The democrats are the ones releasing violent criminals back onto the streets you doofus....and de blasio is setting up the city to go back to the bad old days before Guilliani....

Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop

New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.

The degree of demographic change is startling.

In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.

In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.

In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.


This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.

A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.

Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.

When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)

----

The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decade.

I didn't state that any one Mayor over another. Your statement of "Wrong" is just plain wrong. If you wish to give Guliani the credit, that's fine by me. But it's been a long haul that took one of the murder capitals of the world and dropped it from that list. They did it through raised taxes, more cops on the street and beats, better training and working closer with the communities. You stated that high tech is moving into a once high crime area. Why is that? The City got rid of most of the crime and that left a large pool of workers that could be used. And that is how you defeat crime. Not by putting "More Guns" on the street.

The Other Cities need to follow suit. But first, they need to find the funding to do it. NYC is a special case. There is a lot of money there and places where they could raise taxes to gain those funds and that is exactly what they did. All the meanwhile, your bunch screamed, "You lousy Socialists" at them. They are getting results no matter who originated it.

More guns on the streets don't work in high crime areas. More cops on the corner does.

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens doesn't increase the crime rate, doofus. More Americans owning and carrying guns led to a drop in the gun crime rate of 75%....the gun murder rate dropped 49%....the violent crime rate dropped 72%......

Letting violent gun criminals out of jail drives the gun crime rate.....and New York used to have stop and Frisk...they got rid of that...... as de blasio ends all of the policies that worked, the crime rate in New York is going to go up...

Or is it that they are spending less money on law enforcement and community action that has worked quite well in the past?

Actually, in 2017, the violent crime went down in NYC. It's now down to the 1950s level. And that is under DeBlacio. The programs that were setup under past mayors are working and working well. Stop lying.

Crime in New York City Plunges to a Level Not Seen Since the 1950s

Wrong, as my link showed the actions and techniques of Rudy Giuliani and his police commissioner cleaned up the city, and now de blasio is getting rid of everything they did......

 

[2aguy]

Tell you what Comrade, you pick that jeep up and carry it a mile and we'll make an exception for you...

Seriously, you Totalitarians have GOT to get some new lies. These old ones have been defeated so many times that the only thing to do is mock your commie ass.

Ah, move the goalposts once again. The 2nd amendment doesn't say I have to be able to carry it. It simply states that my rights to a firearm shall not be infringed. And a Jeep Mounted M-2 is definitely a firearm. Are you placing limits on what can and can't be owned? If you are then you saying that there are limits and someone or something must be able to spell out those limits. Should be elevate you to the position to determine those limits for everyone? Would you accept that position?

D.C v Heller...you should read it. "To Keep and Bear...." Do you know what "Bear" means?

All bearable arms are protected, as written in D.C v Heller.

And what firearms does it mean? Who makes the determination?

The Definition of Bear is to Transport or carry. And if I mount a M-2 50 Cal Automatic on top of a Jeep then I am transporting it. Therefore, I am bearing my Firearm. You will need to rewrite all the dictionaries definitions if you wish to limit the word "Bear" to just "Carry". I can go even further and "Transport" an Artillery Piece. Does that mean that I have the right to roll one down the highway? And, again, who makes this determination? Do you reserve the right to make that determination only to your group? Or can anyone play?

You seem to want to place limits on me yet you don't want any limits placed on you. Funny how that works.

Read D.C. v Heller, and Caetano v Massachusetts....they explain it for you......you can also read Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park where he states that AR-15s are specifically protected by the Heller decision......

That would be a start for your education.

Caetano v Massachusetts just refers back to DC V Heller, nothing more. And if you just use Heller, it only applies to handguns in the homes. Sounds pretty limiting to me.

The Petition to overturn the lower court ruling supporting the Highland Park law was not overturned. It was refused to be heard by the Supreme Court so the lower court ruling in favor of Highland Park stood. The Law specifically singles out (and it names it) the AR style weapons that can accept high capacity mags. The Courts used Heller in that it only applied to Handguns and did not apply to the AR style weapons.

Again, a dissenting view is NOT the part that means anything at all legally. It's just one persons opinion. I have my opinion, you have yours and Scalia and Thomas has theirs. The fact that there was a ruling of 5 to 4 to not hear the case is all that counts. The Highland Park Law stands and it's deem constitutional.

I asked who was to make the determination on what was and what wasn't legal. Well, thank you for leading up to this once again. How's it feel to have that ring in your nose. It's not up to me nor you. It's up to Congress and the Supreme Court. I find that the 2nd amendment is too ambiguous. Since Congress won't fix that, it means the Supreme Court will and they have many times. And the court system will continue to do Congresses job since they refuse to do so since it might cost them elections.

Thomas and Scalia didn't really find that big a fault in the case, they weren't worried about the "Rights". They were worried about how many ARs were out there and the impact it might have on the society as a whole. I'll say it again, if you don't like the laws where you are living and see a place that you like the laws better, stop bitching and move.

Wrong.....again.....you are talking out of your ass....you need to stop that because you will get an infection....

Heller...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

----------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

-

And in Friedman Scalia explains to the 7th circuit that they are morons......as he explains Heller to them.....you don't sit on the 7th Circuit do you? Because you make things up the same way they did......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf



Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And what City has caused those figures to drop? NYC. And how have they done that? They increased funding and public involvement in their Police Forces. It was done not by getting more civilian guns on the streets. It was done by getting more Criminal Guns off the streets by law enforcement. More Guns have never been the answer. The Answer has always been better Police and more public involvement. You gun nutters don't want to spend taxes for that since it would be a Democratic method and solution since it would require increasing taxes. And that would be, as you call it, a Socialist move. It's not socialist, it's just a fact of life that we need to spend money for a better police presence along with better training. But that would get in the way of your "More Guns" routine.

Wrong..... again.

It was done by Guilliani and they are living off of the techniques he used.....and since our gun murder rate in this country dropped 49%, and our gun crime rate dropped 75% as more Americans bought, and carried guns, law abiding citizens carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate....

The democrats are the ones releasing violent criminals back onto the streets you doofus....and de blasio is setting up the city to go back to the bad old days before Guilliani....

Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop

New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.

The degree of demographic change is startling.

In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.

In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.

In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.


This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.

A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.

Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.

When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)

----

The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decade.

I didn't state that any one Mayor over another. Your statement of "Wrong" is just plain wrong. If you wish to give Guliani the credit, that's fine by me. But it's been a long haul that took one of the murder capitals of the world and dropped it from that list. They did it through raised taxes, more cops on the street and beats, better training and working closer with the communities. You stated that high tech is moving into a once high crime area. Why is that? The City got rid of most of the crime and that left a large pool of workers that could be used. And that is how you defeat crime. Not by putting "More Guns" on the street.

The Other Cities need to follow suit. But first, they need to find the funding to do it. NYC is a special case. There is a lot of money there and places where they could raise taxes to gain those funds and that is exactly what they did. All the meanwhile, your bunch screamed, "You lousy Socialists" at them. They are getting results no matter who originated it.

More guns on the streets don't work in high crime areas. More cops on the corner does.

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens doesn't increase the crime rate, doofus. More Americans owning and carrying guns led to a drop in the gun crime rate of 75%....the gun murder rate dropped 49%....the violent crime rate dropped 72%......

Letting violent gun criminals out of jail drives the gun crime rate.....and New York used to have stop and Frisk...they got rid of that...... as de blasio ends all of the policies that worked, the crime rate in New York is going to go up...

Or is it that they are spending less money on law enforcement and community action that has worked quite well in the past?

Actually, in 2017, the violent crime went down in NYC. It's now down to the 1950s level. And that is under DeBlacio. The programs that were setup under past mayors are working and working well. Stop lying.

Crime in New York City Plunges to a Level Not Seen Since the 1950s

Wrong, as my link showed the actions and techniques of Rudy Giuliani and his police commissioner cleaned up the city, and now de blasio is getting rid of everything they did......

And what City has caused those figures to drop? NYC. And how have they done that? They increased funding and public involvement in their Police Forces. It was done not by getting more civilian guns on the streets. It was done by getting more Criminal Guns off the streets by law enforcement. More Guns have never been the answer. The Answer has always been better Police and more public involvement. You gun nutters don't want to spend taxes for that since it would be a Democratic method and solution since it would require increasing taxes. And that would be, as you call it, a Socialist move. It's not socialist, it's just a fact of life that we need to spend money for a better police presence along with better training. But that would get in the way of your "More Guns" routine.

Wrong..... again.

It was done by Guilliani and they are living off of the techniques he used.....and since our gun murder rate in this country dropped 49%, and our gun crime rate dropped 75% as more Americans bought, and carried guns, law abiding citizens carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate....

The democrats are the ones releasing violent criminals back onto the streets you doofus....and de blasio is setting up the city to go back to the bad old days before Guilliani....

Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop

New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.

The degree of demographic change is startling.

In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.

In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.

In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.


This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.

A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.

Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.

When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)

----

The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decade.

I didn't state that any one Mayor over another. Your statement of "Wrong" is just plain wrong. If you wish to give Guliani the credit, that's fine by me. But it's been a long haul that took one of the murder capitals of the world and dropped it from that list. They did it through raised taxes, more cops on the street and beats, better training and working closer with the communities. You stated that high tech is moving into a once high crime area. Why is that? The City got rid of most of the crime and that left a large pool of workers that could be used. And that is how you defeat crime. Not by putting "More Guns" on the street.

The Other Cities need to follow suit. But first, they need to find the funding to do it. NYC is a special case. There is a lot of money there and places where they could raise taxes to gain those funds and that is exactly what they did. All the meanwhile, your bunch screamed, "You lousy Socialists" at them. They are getting results no matter who originated it.

More guns on the streets don't work in high crime areas. More cops on the corner does.

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens doesn't increase the crime rate, doofus. More Americans owning and carrying guns led to a drop in the gun crime rate of 75%....the gun murder rate dropped 49%....the violent crime rate dropped 72%......

Letting violent gun criminals out of jail drives the gun crime rate.....and New York used to have stop and Frisk...they got rid of that...... as de blasio ends all of the policies that worked, the crime rate in New York is going to go up...

Or is it that they are spending less money on law enforcement and community action that has worked quite well in the past?

Actually, in 2017, the violent crime went down in NYC. It's now down to the 1950s level. And that is under DeBlacio. The programs that were setup under past mayors are working and working well. Stop lying.

Crime in New York City Plunges to a Level Not Seen Since the 1950s

Wrong, as my link showed the actions and techniques of Rudy Giuliani and his police commissioner cleaned up the city, and now de blasio is getting rid of everything they did......

You can't stand it when a major city cleans itself up without issuing guns to everyone. They used other methods that are continuing and it's just getting better. Well, it your bigotry goes on, so be it.

 

[Timmy]

The cesspool that is Western Europe...

Home Secretary Sajid Javid reveals how he was a moped mugging victim as he launches battle to beat villains

Less than one in 20 street robberies are being solved by police | Daily Mail Online

The guns are needed to protect ourselves against the government. This is why the leftists want to so badly to ban them.

Especially if they decide to open the borders like in Europe. Patriots will line up and declare an open season on the savages, and shortly after the idiots in power will be safely removed and deported to their utopias.

So you need a big ol AR so you can shoot police officers ?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

OMG. Ignorance abounds. It's fairly safe to say you've never fucking been there, too.
You're five times more likely to be a victim of homicide in the U.S. than Europe.
And guns are the weapon of choice according to the FBI.
37,000 gun murders versus 1600 knives. Not a typo:
Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

wrong....in 2016 there were 11,004 gun murders.

in 2016 there were 489 accidental gun deaths.

How do you get to 37,000? And even then you can't because if you throw in suicides it still doesn't get you there.....

And at the same time Americans used their legal guns 2.4 million times each year to stop violent criminals, according to the CDC, and as more Americans own and carry guns our gun crime rate has gone down, not up...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

And what City has caused those figures to drop? NYC. And how have they done that? They increased funding and public involvement in their Police Forces. It was done not by getting more civilian guns on the streets. It was done by getting more Criminal Guns off the streets by law enforcement. More Guns have never been the answer. The Answer has always been better Police and more public involvement. You gun nutters don't want to spend taxes for that since it would be a Democratic method and solution since it would require increasing taxes. And that would be, as you call it, a Socialist move. It's not socialist, it's just a fact of life that we need to spend money for a better police presence along with better training. But that would get in the way of your "More Guns" routine.

Wrong..... again.

It was done by Guilliani and they are living off of the techniques he used.....and since our gun murder rate in this country dropped 49%, and our gun crime rate dropped 75% as more Americans bought, and carried guns, law abiding citizens carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate....

The democrats are the ones releasing violent criminals back onto the streets you doofus....and de blasio is setting up the city to go back to the bad old days before Guilliani....

Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop

New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.

The degree of demographic change is startling.

In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.

In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.

In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.


This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.

A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.

Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.

When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)

----

The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decade.

I didn't state that any one Mayor over another. Your statement of "Wrong" is just plain wrong. If you wish to give Guliani the credit, that's fine by me. But it's been a long haul that took one of the murder capitals of the world and dropped it from that list. They did it through raised taxes, more cops on the street and beats, better training and working closer with the communities. You stated that high tech is moving into a once high crime area. Why is that? The City got rid of most of the crime and that left a large pool of workers that could be used. And that is how you defeat crime. Not by putting "More Guns" on the street.

The Other Cities need to follow suit. But first, they need to find the funding to do it. NYC is a special case. There is a lot of money there and places where they could raise taxes to gain those funds and that is exactly what they did. All the meanwhile, your bunch screamed, "You lousy Socialists" at them. They are getting results no matter who originated it.

More guns on the streets don't work in high crime areas. More cops on the corner does.

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens doesn't increase the crime rate, doofus. More Americans owning and carrying guns led to a drop in the gun crime rate of 75%....the gun murder rate dropped 49%....the violent crime rate dropped 72%......

Letting violent gun criminals out of jail drives the gun crime rate.....and New York used to have stop and Frisk...they got rid of that...... as de blasio ends all of the policies that worked, the crime rate in New York is going to go up...

No, but it does increase the accidental shootings which are also way out of control. Placing weapons in the hands of people that are ill suited to handle them just begs for gun accidents. It may be a right but is it wise.

Stop and Frisk was used way too much. It made the "People" feel like they were prisoners and not Citizens. There is a little thing called "probable cause" involved that was ignored. It became a "Us" against "Them" situation. What NYC did was to try and get their cops into the rougher neighborhoods and work with the "Citizens" to regain the trust and to clean up those areas. this, in turn, started attracting industry so the jobs started coming back. If a person is working and making a decent living they are too busy to be a criminal is the thought and it's a good one. And they are doing it with promoting fewer guns.