Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More giullianiAs Mayor of New York, Giuliani became a nationally visible figure in favor of national gun control measures, beginning with an appearance on Meet the Press in late 1993.[76]He was in favor of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[52]
Giuliani and then-president Bill Clintonexchanged correspondence in 1994 regarding Giuliani's support for the assault weapons ban. Clinton wrote to Giuliani in a May 6, 1994 letter: "Thank you very much for your efforts on behalf of H.R. 4296, the assault weapons ban." Clinton continued:
With your support and encouragement, the U.S. House of Representatives took a critical step toward getting assault weapons off the streets, out of neighborhoods, and out of the hands of criminals.
Clinton further said that he was "grateful" for Giuliani's "dedicated" support of the legislation.
On May 31, 1994 Giuliani replied, "Thank you for your autographed photo and kind note." He added, "Please know that you have my continued support for this crucial legislation." An October 13 letter thanked Clinton for a signing pen and said, "I look forward to continuing to work with you to reduce crime . . . ."[77]
He appeared on the Charlie Rose Show in 1995 and compared the National Rifle Associationwith "extremists." He said that the anti-gun control positions of many Republicans are "terrible for states and cities. They're terrible for America." After pointing to NYPD gun seizures and reductions of homicides and shootings in particular. He added that can New York City can "only so far, unless the federal government passes a law that keeps the 90 percent of guns from coming into New York from outside New York, helps us get control over that."[78][79][80
Political positions of Rudy Giuliani - Wikipedia
The gun control for law abiding people didn't do the trick.... .where he actually focused on criminals, that did the trick. Actually arresting and locking up criminals has the amazing effect of lowering the crime rate...
And as we have seen across the country, law abiding gun owners do not raise the crime rate..now that deblasio is treating criminals as if they are the victims, the crime rate will go up in New York.
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.
Crime goes down when violent criminals are locked away and kept locked away, not slapped on the wrist and let go like you scum do!Yes crime went down after passing background checks.As Mayor of New York, Giuliani became a nationally visible figure in favor of national gun control measures, beginning with an appearance on Meet the Press in late 1993.[76]He was in favor of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[52]
Giuliani and then-president Bill Clintonexchanged correspondence in 1994 regarding Giuliani's support for the assault weapons ban. Clinton wrote to Giuliani in a May 6, 1994 letter: "Thank you very much for your efforts on behalf of H.R. 4296, the assault weapons ban." Clinton continued:
With your support and encouragement, the U.S. House of Representatives took a critical step toward getting assault weapons off the streets, out of neighborhoods, and out of the hands of criminals.
Clinton further said that he was "grateful" for Giuliani's "dedicated" support of the legislation.
On May 31, 1994 Giuliani replied, "Thank you for your autographed photo and kind note." He added, "Please know that you have my continued support for this crucial legislation." An October 13 letter thanked Clinton for a signing pen and said, "I look forward to continuing to work with you to reduce crime . . . ."[77]
He appeared on the Charlie Rose Show in 1995 and compared the National Rifle Associationwith "extremists." He said that the anti-gun control positions of many Republicans are "terrible for states and cities. They're terrible for America." After pointing to NYPD gun seizures and reductions of homicides and shootings in particular. He added that can New York City can "only so far, unless the federal government passes a law that keeps the 90 percent of guns from coming into New York from outside New York, helps us get control over that."[78][79][80
Political positions of Rudy Giuliani - Wikipedia
The gun control for law abiding people didn't do the trick.... .where he actually focused on criminals, that did the trick. Actually arresting and locking up criminals has the amazing effect of lowering the crime rate...
And as we have seen across the country, law abiding gun owners do not raise the crime rate..now that deblasio is treating criminals as if they are the victims, the crime rate will go up in New York.
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.
As Mayor of New York, Giuliani became a nationally visible figure in favor of national gun control measures, beginning with an appearance on Meet the Press in late 1993.[76]He was in favor of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[52]
Giuliani and then-president Bill Clintonexchanged correspondence in 1994 regarding Giuliani's support for the assault weapons ban. Clinton wrote to Giuliani in a May 6, 1994 letter: "Thank you very much for your efforts on behalf of H.R. 4296, the assault weapons ban." Clinton continued:
With your support and encouragement, the U.S. House of Representatives took a critical step toward getting assault weapons off the streets, out of neighborhoods, and out of the hands of criminals.
Clinton further said that he was "grateful" for Giuliani's "dedicated" support of the legislation.
On May 31, 1994 Giuliani replied, "Thank you for your autographed photo and kind note." He added, "Please know that you have my continued support for this crucial legislation." An October 13 letter thanked Clinton for a signing pen and said, "I look forward to continuing to work with you to reduce crime . . . ."[77]
He appeared on the Charlie Rose Show in 1995 and compared the National Rifle Associationwith "extremists." He said that the anti-gun control positions of many Republicans are "terrible for states and cities. They're terrible for America." After pointing to NYPD gun seizures and reductions of homicides and shootings in particular. He added that can New York City can "only so far, unless the federal government passes a law that keeps the 90 percent of guns from coming into New York from outside New York, helps us get control over that."[78][79][80
Political positions of Rudy Giuliani - Wikipedia
The gun control for law abiding people didn't do the trick.... .where he actually focused on criminals, that did the trick. Actually arresting and locking up criminals has the amazing effect of lowering the crime rate...
And as we have seen across the country, law abiding gun owners do not raise the crime rate..now that deblasio is treating criminals as if they are the victims, the crime rate will go up in New York.
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
Total bullshit.As Mayor of New York, Giuliani became a nationally visible figure in favor of national gun control measures, beginning with an appearance on Meet the Press in late 1993.[76]He was in favor of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[52]
Giuliani and then-president Bill Clintonexchanged correspondence in 1994 regarding Giuliani's support for the assault weapons ban. Clinton wrote to Giuliani in a May 6, 1994 letter: "Thank you very much for your efforts on behalf of H.R. 4296, the assault weapons ban." Clinton continued:
With your support and encouragement, the U.S. House of Representatives took a critical step toward getting assault weapons off the streets, out of neighborhoods, and out of the hands of criminals.
Clinton further said that he was "grateful" for Giuliani's "dedicated" support of the legislation.
On May 31, 1994 Giuliani replied, "Thank you for your autographed photo and kind note." He added, "Please know that you have my continued support for this crucial legislation." An October 13 letter thanked Clinton for a signing pen and said, "I look forward to continuing to work with you to reduce crime . . . ."[77]
He appeared on the Charlie Rose Show in 1995 and compared the National Rifle Associationwith "extremists." He said that the anti-gun control positions of many Republicans are "terrible for states and cities. They're terrible for America." After pointing to NYPD gun seizures and reductions of homicides and shootings in particular. He added that can New York City can "only so far, unless the federal government passes a law that keeps the 90 percent of guns from coming into New York from outside New York, helps us get control over that."[78][79][80
Political positions of Rudy Giuliani - Wikipedia
The gun control for law abiding people didn't do the trick.... .where he actually focused on criminals, that did the trick. Actually arresting and locking up criminals has the amazing effect of lowering the crime rate...
And as we have seen across the country, law abiding gun owners do not raise the crime rate..now that deblasio is treating criminals as if they are the victims, the crime rate will go up in New York.
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
Those guns, Giuliani said, would mean more death.
“The single biggest connection between violent crime and an increase in violent crime is the presence of guns in your society,” he declared. “The more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less guns you take out of society, the more it is going to go up.”
Because when we humanoids are packed in close spaces we tend to piss each other off.
He clearly used gun control and supported more federal gun control.As Mayor of New York, Giuliani became a nationally visible figure in favor of national gun control measures, beginning with an appearance on Meet the Press in late 1993.[76]He was in favor of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[52]
Giuliani and then-president Bill Clintonexchanged correspondence in 1994 regarding Giuliani's support for the assault weapons ban. Clinton wrote to Giuliani in a May 6, 1994 letter: "Thank you very much for your efforts on behalf of H.R. 4296, the assault weapons ban." Clinton continued:
With your support and encouragement, the U.S. House of Representatives took a critical step toward getting assault weapons off the streets, out of neighborhoods, and out of the hands of criminals.
Clinton further said that he was "grateful" for Giuliani's "dedicated" support of the legislation.
On May 31, 1994 Giuliani replied, "Thank you for your autographed photo and kind note." He added, "Please know that you have my continued support for this crucial legislation." An October 13 letter thanked Clinton for a signing pen and said, "I look forward to continuing to work with you to reduce crime . . . ."[77]
He appeared on the Charlie Rose Show in 1995 and compared the National Rifle Associationwith "extremists." He said that the anti-gun control positions of many Republicans are "terrible for states and cities. They're terrible for America." After pointing to NYPD gun seizures and reductions of homicides and shootings in particular. He added that can New York City can "only so far, unless the federal government passes a law that keeps the 90 percent of guns from coming into New York from outside New York, helps us get control over that."[78][79][80
Political positions of Rudy Giuliani - Wikipedia
The gun control for law abiding people didn't do the trick.... .where he actually focused on criminals, that did the trick. Actually arresting and locking up criminals has the amazing effect of lowering the crime rate...
And as we have seen across the country, law abiding gun owners do not raise the crime rate..now that deblasio is treating criminals as if they are the victims, the crime rate will go up in New York.
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.
Yeah, criminals use guns to commit crime and you approve. I've owned guns for over 40 years and have NEVER used one unlawfully.Rudy used gun control to lower NYC crime rates. US crime rates dropped when we got background checks. The results speak for themselves.
I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.
According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).
Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy
So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...
1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)
2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?
Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?
Muster the militia and have them present arms on a regular basis.I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.
According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).
Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy
So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...
1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)
2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?
Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?
The answer: because these cities are largly black. There are almost no blacks in Europe.
And the black youth absolutely should have zero guns at their disposal. Murder should carry higher penalties...
I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.
According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).
Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy
So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...
1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)
2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?
Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?
Given that cities around the world have large populations, slums, etc have almost no gun violence and the same can be said about their rural areas, the “city” or “rural” argument is unimportant. Gun availability is the issue. They don’t have it there. We have it here and we have far more gun deaths as a result.
Said it once, said it a thousand times….
A guy in Paris France gets jilted by his classmate and is pissed about it; he goes home and cries about it. Over time, he gets over it.
A guy in Paris Texas gets jilted by his classmate and is pissed aobut it; he goes to the local pawn shop or Wal Mart or his dad’s gun closet, collects an arsenal and kills people. See Santa Fe Texas for proof.
I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.
According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).
Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy
So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...
1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)
2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?
Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?
Given that cities around the world have large populations, slums, etc have almost no gun violence and the same can be said about their rural areas, the “city” or “rural” argument is unimportant. Gun availability is the issue. They don’t have it there. We have it here and we have far more gun deaths as a result.
Said it once, said it a thousand times….
A guy in Paris France gets jilted by his classmate and is pissed about it; he goes home and cries about it. Over time, he gets over it.
A guy in Paris Texas gets jilted by his classmate and is pissed aobut it; he goes to the local pawn shop or Wal Mart or his dad’s gun closet, collects an arsenal and kills people. See Santa Fe Texas for proof.
Muster the militia and have them present arms on a regular basis.I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.
According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).
Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy
So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...
1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)
2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?
Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?
The answer: because these cities are largly black. There are almost no blacks in Europe.
And the black youth absolutely should have zero guns at their disposal. Murder should carry higher penalties...
The concentration of poor like sardines in a can.I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.
According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).
Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy
So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...
1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)
2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?
Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?
No major city in America would hesitate to trade their violent crime stats with major cities in Europe.
