Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Call it what you want. There were results to be shown for that behavior by the NYPD. But should the NYPD not enforce the law because they can't control guns coming into the City?
Trying to get rid of the guns won't fix the problems that are encouraging people to use them in the first place. It's a way to pretend that you're doing something while ignoring the actual problem because it's too hard.
Trying to get rid of the guns won't fix the problems that are encouraging people to use them in the first place. It's a way to pretend that you're doing something while ignoring the actual problem because it's too hard.
But getting rid of the guns will reduce people having guns and help to lower crime, resulting in thousands of lives saved throughout the city. Yes, guns will be brought back into the city, but that's why you don't let up with aggressive policing aimed at targeting those people who continue to flout the rules. Simply put, you are doing something by targeting the guns that are on the street and by not relenting in those efforts. You're making the streets safer for countless families and improving quality of life. Tell the families who benefit from increase safety that such efforts are "pretend." Tell us how a reduction of homicides from over 2,000 per year to close to 400 per year, due in part (most will argue) to these policing tactics, was "pretending" to fix a problem that encouraged people to use/own them to begin with.
Do tell what is causing people to "use" these guns to begin with and what the NYPD should be doing differently to address that? The NYPD is/was doing what it was supposed to do.
Your citation to the number of arrests IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM! We are seeing less arrests, and less illegal guns/knives/etc. taken off the street, etc., in large part because of de Blasio's enforcement priorities and scaling back of stop and frisk! As a result, the riffraff are allowed to roam with impunity.
As for overall crime being down still, yes, that's true. But shootings and homicides are up. And we're still seeing quality of life issues worsen as de Blasio's nonsensical approach to policing continues to take hold.
Stop and frisk a la Bloombucks and Kelly is not getting put back. It's beating a dead horse. Not worth talking about.
Stop and frisk a la Bloombucks and Kelly is not getting put back. It's beating a dead horse. Not worth talking about.
Oh, sure it will. Just wait until enough people get fed up with the results that we are seeing now. People said that Republican Giuliani wouldn't win at first either, but the disaster that Democratic rule and policies brought back to the city ensured his victory. Don't think de Blasio's policies are going to last forever.
But if its "not worth talking about," feel free to disengage from the topic.
But getting rid of the guns will reduce people having guns and help to lower crime, resulting in thousands of lives saved throughout the city. Yes, guns will be brought back into the city, but that's why you don't let up with aggressive policing aimed at targeting those people who continue to flout the rules. Simply put, you are doing something by targeting the guns that are on the street and by not relenting in those efforts. You're making the streets safer for countless families and improving quality of life. Tell the families who benefit from increase safety that such efforts are "pretend."
These crimes aren't happening in the streets at random. How does stop and frisk protect people against domestic abuse or a targeted revenge killing?
At least 19 of the slayings this year were the result of robberies, burglaries, gang warfare or drug dealing.
NYPD Chief of Detectives Robert Boyce said each of the seven drug-related murders this year involved marijuana dealers being targeted.
“These are not turf battles. These are ripoffs of marijuana dealers,†Boyce said.
At least eight murders were attributed to domestic violence, including that of a 3-year-old Brooklyn boy allegedly beaten to death last week by his belt-wielding aunt.
A dozen other slayings were sparked by various disputes, while four were reclassified as murders after the victims died from wounds suffered before the start of the year. Motives in at least nine murders remained unknown. One killing was deemed an accident and one justified, cops said.
Oh, sure it will. It will once people get fed up with the results that we are seeing now. People said that Republican Giuliani wouldn't win at first either, but the disaster that Democratic rule and policies brought back to the city ensured his victory. Don't think de Blasio's policies are going to last forever.
I like how you're dodging now, though.
It was already deemed unconstitutional. It's not happening.
Homicides rarely happen randomly. Still, the answer to your question is easy. Most homicides in this country/city occur via firearm, specifically handgun. Most in this city and elsewhere are gangbangers going after each other, with some spillover that takes the lives of innocents. By taking aggressive action that helps to ensure that guns are being taken off the street, the police help to ensure that these individuals no longer have easy access to the tools used to commit these crimes. Guns allow people to be cowardly. Take away guns from the bad guys and you'll see less aggression/homicide as its one thing to shoot someone from behind and flee, but its another thing completely to confront someone without the "comfort" of a lethal weapon, which stop and frisk, etc., help to get off the street. But the results of S&F and other policing techniques speak for themselves.
It was already deemed unconstitutional. It's not happening.
Shows how much you know S&F has been explicitly ruled to be constitutional by the US Supreme Court. And no federal district court order changes that. Moreover, the federal court order, which applied to S&F as it was being applied in certain instances, is, apart from getting the legal analysis wrong in more than one way (for instance, the district court judge used a disparate impact analysis for the 14th Amendment equal protection claim/racial discrimination, but the Supreme Court has made clear that the test for such claims is intentional discrimination, not disparate impact), not binding precedent. Its rather easy for a future administration to have that ruling tossed aside. I repeat: it will happen under the circumstances listed.
Homicides rarely happen randomly. Still, the answer to your question is easy. Most homicides in this country/city occur via firearm, specifically handgun. Most in this city and elsewhere are gangbangers going after each other, with some spillover that takes the lives of innocents. By taking aggressive action that helps to ensure that guns are being taken off the street, the police help to ensure that these individuals no longer have easy access to the tools used to commit these crimes. Guns allow people to be cowardly. Take away guns from the bad guys and you'll see less aggression/homicide as its one thing to shoot someone from behind and flee, but its another thing completely to confront someone without the "comfort" of a lethal weapon, which stop and frisk, etc., help to get off the street. But the results of S&F and other policing techniques speak for themselves.
The problem is your solutions are entirely reactionary and don't address the underlying tensions that actually cause these crimes. But who wants to deal with the lack of affordable housing when the real estate cartels need to buy themselves a new yacht?
The problem is your solutions are entirely reactionary and don't address the underlying tensions that actually cause these crimes. But who wants to deal with the lack of affordable housing when the real estate cartels need to buy themselves a new yacht?
Reactionary or not, they bring about results and calm to the city. Those solutions are the NYPD doing its job. If you want to talk about other issues, bring those up with City Hall/legislatures. But don't curtail the NYPD from doing their job.
Still, are you claiming that a lack of affordable housing is causing people to want to use guns??? Seriously???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
S&F has been explicitly ruled to be constitutional by the US Supreme Court. And no federal district court order changes that. Moreover, the federal court order, which applied to S&F as it was being applied in certain instances, is, apart from getting the legal analysis wrong in more than one way (for instance, the district court judge used a disparate impact analysis for the 14th Amendment equal protection claim/racial discrimination, but the Supreme Court has made clear that the test for such claims is intentional discrimination, not disparate impact), not binding precedent. Its rather easy for a future administration to have that ruling tossed aside. I repeat: it will happen under the circumstances listed.
