CDZ The Big City and Small Towns

[Skull Pilot]

This is not a difficult concept people.

The crime rates in cities is much higher than crime rate in small and rural towns. Therefore gun crimes are far more common in cities than small and rural towns.

Illegal gun use is higher in cities because illegal gun use is a crime and crime rates are higher in cities.

We do not have a gun problem we have major societal problems in our cities.

 

[yiostheoy]

The problem in the USA is that when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

 

[2aguy]

And Chicago, Baltimore and D.C. show how stupid this next part is......

First, one might object that a Second Amendment doctrine that dilutes the rights of city-dwellers—especially those in high-crime areas—would effectively deny guns to the very people who need them the most. This

ight limit the possibilities for armed self-defense, one of its primary purposes is to lessen the need for such self-defense. A local legislature that passes a particular gun control measure has presumably concluded that the measure will save lives, and while that determination is not immune to judicial evaluation, it is the kind of empirical determination that generally receives deference from the courts.296

This Article takes no position on whether cities are better off with or without restrictive gun control. The constitutionalquestion is to what degree they even have the option to employ it. And the fact that gun control would inevitably limit access to armed self-defense does not mean it is unconstitutional.297

 

[yiostheoy]

The problem all around the world is that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a better gun who is a better shot.

 

[2aguy]

The problem in the USA is that when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

actually, that is the problem all over the world........even in Europe, Japan and Australia....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...the paper is not helpful.....

 

[Wilbur Right]

The problem in the USA is that when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

To bad no one ever showed you the beauty of common sense. You must of been studying philosophy that day.

Common sense tells you ( or it would if you had any) that no one is proposing a ban on guns.

But that type of bullshit sure helps gun sales. And thats what its all about.

What philosophy did you study. The philosophy of bullshit and lies?

 

[2aguy]

The problem in the USA is that when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

To bad no one ever showed you the beauty of common sense. You must of been studying philosophy that day.

Common sense tells you ( or it would if you had any) that no one is proposing a ban on guns.

But that type of bullshit sure helps gun sales. And thats what its all about.

What philosophy did you study. The philosophy of bullshit and lies?

Massachuesetts just did.....

 

[2aguy]

And they don't cover this dynamic either.....that criminals get involved with local politicians....to keep people disarmed.......

The strange birth of NY’s gun laws

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them asshtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.
----Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm.

 

[yiostheoy]

The problem in the USA is that when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

To bad no one ever showed you the beauty of common sense. You must of been studying philosophy that day.

Common sense tells you ( or it would if you had any) that no one is proposing a ban on guns.

But that type of bullshit sure helps gun sales. And thats what its all about.

What philosophy did you study. The philosophy of bullshit and lies?

Thanks to Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, and Thomas, Heller ensures that all guns will never be outlawed anywhere.

But some guns might.

The SCOTUS (now with 8) refused to hear an assault weapons ban and they let it stand.

Plenty of cities and states have de facto tried to ban all guns.

Apparently you are not very well informed about that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The problem in the USA is that when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

To bad no one ever showed you the beauty of common sense. You must of been studying philosophy that day.

Common sense tells you ( or it would if you had any) that no one is proposing a ban on guns.

But that type of bullshit sure helps gun sales. And thats what its all about.

What philosophy did you study. The philosophy of bullshit and lies?

Then what do you called the so called "assault" weapon bans?

The next will be rifles with detachable magazines after magazine size is limited to some arbitrary number then it will be all semiauto rifles

Then it will be handguns with detachable magazines

And it's all because the morons calling for these bans don't know their asses from their elbows when it comes to firearms

 

[Wilbur Right]

The SCOTUS (now with 8) refused to hear an assault weapons ban and they let it stand.

Plenty of cities and states have de facto tried to ban all guns.

Apparently you are not very well informed about that.

Is there a difference between a community deciding to ban the sale of a particular type of weapon as opposed to a nation wide ban on all guns? Not just the sale of guns but the confiscation of existing guns as well. Prohibiting the sale of any guns and confiscating existing guns would be a ban on guns.

Who is proposing that idea?

And can or do you see the difference between the two proposals?

As to not bei g informed. LMAO. I have read enough of 2nd A posts to get the gist of the arguments. That and being a gun owner for 40 years gives me some more perspective.

How about you? Big shooter or hunter? Do a lot of DGUs? That's a biggie around here. Lots of violence where these other posters live. Not much where I am in Ohio.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The SCOTUS (now with 8) refused to hear an assault weapons ban and they let it stand.

Plenty of cities and states have de facto tried to ban all guns.

Apparently you are not very well informed about that.

Is there a difference between a community deciding to ban the sale of a particular type of weapon as opposed to a nation wide ban on all guns? Not just the sale of guns but the confiscation of existing guns as well. Prohibiting the sale of any guns and confiscating existing guns would be a ban on guns.

Who is proposing that idea?

And can or do you see the difference between the two proposals?

As to not bei g informed. LMAO. I have read enough of 2nd A posts to get the gist of the arguments. That and being a gun owner for 40 years gives me some more perspective.

How about you? Big shooter or hunter? Do a lot of DGUs? That's a biggie around here. Lots of violence where these other posters live. Not much where I am in Ohio.

Is there a difference in a city deciding it doesn't need search warrants or a town deciding to ban certain types of speech or certain publications as long as it's not nationwide?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Massachuesetts just did.....

Did what? Ban all guns? Or you mad criminals in Mass will have a harder time getting an AR 15?

Will Mass citizens survive without semi auto assault weapons? We'll find out.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Is there a difference in a city deciding it doesn't need search warrants or a town deciding to ban certain types of speech or certain publications as long as it's not nationwide?

You able to stay on topic?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Btw skull thanks to the patriot act, if you are investigated for the right type of crime, you have NO rights. And that is nation wide.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Is there a difference in a city deciding it doesn't need search warrants or a town deciding to ban certain types of speech or certain publications as long as it's not nationwide?

You able to stay on topic?

You are asking if the partial suspension of the right to bear arms in some places as long as it's not nationwide is acceptable.

I am expanding the topic to include other rights

Unless you want to provide proof that somehow the second amendment is somehow inferior to any other amendment then my extrapolation IS on topic

 

[Skull Pilot]

Btw skull thanks to the patriot act, if you are investigated for the right type of crime, you have NO rights. And that is nation wide.

And I suppose you supported that

 

[320 Years of History]

Curiously, folks remark that crime in Chicago has fallen precipitously. It doesn't look that way to me.

Source: Chicago off to deadliest start in nearly two decades
​

The chart shows homicides, but the source article notes that shootings follow a similar trend. So, yes, crime/shootings went down, but they went back up, and with a vengeance no less.

"As of 6 a.m. Wednesday, homicides totaled 135, a 71 percent jump over the 79 killings in the same year-earlier period, official Police Department statistics show. That represented the worst first quarter of a year since 136 homicides in 1999, according to the data." (Article date: 31-Mar-2016)
​

Over the longer term, we see a general decline in Chicago homicides, but the disappearance of Chicago's gun control laws don't appear to have much to do with that.

Click the image to access the source article. Sorry. The time scale -- 1985 to 2015 in five year increments -- and other labels didn't paste in. (You can also click "view attachment" to see the full chart only.)

• Red line: Chicago
• Grey line: Los Angeles
• Blue line: New York City

Now, I can see the decline in homicides began well before Heller and McDonald. And I can see that in Chicago, homicides have been going up and down since both decisions. As a result, I think it's more than a little disingenuous to cite Chicago for either side of the debate.

Looking at L.A. and NYC, we see L.A.'s homicides have gone back to about what they were before 2010, while NYC has stayed below its 2010 rates. Were the correlation between Heller/McDonald so strongly tied to homicide rates, I would expect to see homicides go down and stay lower than each prior year; that is, we should not see increases in the year over year homicide rate per 100K. Furthermore, I'd expect that to happen across the nation seeing as both are SCOTUS decisions.

I couldn't find a similar chart for D.C. (I'm sure there is one, but I don't know where it is); however, I did find the Metropolitan police department's tabular depiction of the past 20 years of homicides per 100K people. The general trend roughly follows that of L.A.

Now I don't know the demographic trends in Chicago, NYC and L.A. as I do those in D.C. and there's one really huge thing going on in D.C. that I'd wager contributes more than gun control and more than does the absence of gun control legislation. I know that "thing" began in the late 1980s and throughout all of the 1990s because I and my peers were more or less part of it and we and folks like us have continued to be part of that trend. Looking at the chart above, I'd wager the same thing happened in L.A., NYC and Chicago. What is that "thing?" Gentrification and "yuppies" returning to the center of the city.

Gentrification of the inner city began roughly in the late 1970s when, after the 1960s era riots drive upper middle income folks out of the city. Droves of professional gay folks, most often gay men, bought by then run down Georgetown homes, renovated them, made the neighborhood swanky and sold at phenomenal profits to very well off older folks, young "old money" locals, and the so called "power elite" folks whom one saw in the news. The whole process took about 20 yeas and by the 1990s, the only folks buying anything in Georgetown were wealthy, not upper middle income, people.

(Those were also the days of "conventional" real estate loan models; there wasn't that "any credit rating will do," "balloon rates/payments" and "no money down" crap to buy homes. Folks bought what they could afford, not what the lender was willing to make it possible for them to stretch into "debt hell" to "afford now" just because they wanted a "posh" house/address.) ​

The next generation of gay boys, looking slightly eastward, did the same thing in Dupont Circle. I was part of that wave of investment/development. (I'm not gay and wasn't then either.) I bought a couple row houses on a run down street and fixed them up. Over the next few years, the same thing happened to other homes on all the surrounding streets/blocks and "poof," Dupont Circle became posh and pricey just as Georgetown did. The exact same process has been happening in each of the downtown neighborhoods and now what just 15 years ago were still the blighted and "blown out" remnants of the 1968 riots has become trendy and thriving. It's gotten to the point that there simply now is no such thing as affordable housing (rent or own) in downtown D.C.

You know what else pretty much (but not entirely) disappeared? Shootings, along with all sorts of other crimes, in downtown D.C. One can still get mugged; that can happen anywhere, but one likely won't die from it. Additionally, however, I never saw the gay boys packing heat as they moved about the neighborhood, and it wasn't a "good" neighborhood back in those days. Truly, the night I moved in, there were folks selling drugs at the end of the alley behind my home. Yet, nobody carried guns, and tight as their jeans were and as scantily clad in generally as they were, one would have noticed a gun.

It's worth noting that the time period to which I've referred above was the "Murder Capital" era in D.C. And you know where the shootings were happening? In the non-gentrifying parts of the city, and the whole city prohibited gun possession. Another observation is that the folks who were moving about Dupont -- gay or otherwise -- weren't trying to piss off other folks and they weren't of a mind to get pissed off about the slighted real or imagined slight.

To give you an idea of what Dupont used to look like...

14th and U Streets, NW...1988 and now​

Rowhouses before and after...not as obviously dramatic a difference because with most of these houses, the work needed was on inside.

​

Lessons gleaned from the observations above:

1. Gentrification reduces murder rates.
2. Where gay boys go, so to does gentrification.
3. If you want to revitalize a residential neighborhood, open a gay bar in it.
4. Being able to possess guns hasn't, in my experience, done anything to increase or decrease murder rates; however, if one has a gun at hand, it's available to be used when one gets pissed off about "whatever."
5. Not being able to possess guns hasn't, in my experience, done anything to increase or decrease murder rates; however, if one doesn't have have a gun, it's not available to be used when you get pissed off about "whatever." If it can't be used then and there, many folks will be less likely to shoot someone. And a few days later, one may not be so pissed off.
6. There's not much need for a gun in the city, even in rough neighborhoods.

I know numbers four and five above do nothing for legit defensive occasions, but they do something to help curtail needless killings due to hot tempers. And let's be real. How many shootings don't have something to do with hot tempers and and the opportunity to succeed by using a gun?

The reality in my mind is that no one measure -- gun control, gentrification, attitude adjustment, profiling, etc. -- is going to stop every gun killing or every crime. The combination of several will abate quite a few. Everyone isn't going to like every measure. Folks who like guns won't want gun control. Folks who don't want to move won't like gentrification. Folks who think "there's nothing wrong with me/us/them" won't like attitude adjustment and/or profiling. People in cities won't like having the rules of rurality applied to them and vice versa.

This tone that I hear -- "I" gotta have 100% of the way I want things to be -- coming from the gun control and gun rights camps is total BS in my mind. I honestly do not care at all whether I or anyone else can or cannot legally own a gun. I care that my countrymen are dying or being injured involuntarily from gunshots. I'm not at all convinced that the people on either side are more focused on saving lives and reducing injuries (or the severity of them) than they are about just having their way. The fact is that everyone's gonna have to "give a little" to make a material dent in murder and gun shot rates.

 

[2aguy]

The problem in the USA is that when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

To bad no one ever showed you the beauty of common sense. You must of been studying philosophy that day.

Common sense tells you ( or it would if you had any) that no one is proposing a ban on guns.

But that type of bullshit sure helps gun sales. And thats what its all about.

What philosophy did you study. The philosophy of bullshit and lies?

Then what do you called the so called "assault" weapon bans?

The next will be rifles with detachable magazines after magazine size is limited to some arbitrary number then it will be all semiauto rifles

Then it will be handguns with detachable magazines

And it's all because the morons calling for these bans don't know their asses from their elbows when it comes to firearms

I hate to disagree with you.....they know exactly what guns are made of....at least the ones pushing the agenda......they are boiling the frog, constricting the mouse.........one gun, one category of guns at a time till they have them all...