General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Mayor Nutter Joins Coalition Of Anti-Gun Groups
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Go Vols (a host of the General Discussion forum).
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — Mayor Nutter joined a coalition of anti-gun groups today to help launch a new initiative to reduce gun violence.
Philadelphia was one of ten cities to become part of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s new lobbying group, Everytown for Gun Safety.
Bloomberg is plowing $50 million of his own money into the campaign to counter the powerful influence of the National Rifle Association.
Mayor Nutter says part of that effort will include a gun sense voter campaign.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/04/16/mayor-nutter-joins-coalition-of-anti-gun-groups
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Mayor Nutter said.
I would add --
-right not to have a gun fancier standing next to my family with a gun or two strapped to their body;
-right not to be shot in a road rage incident (like NRA President's son was imprisoned for);
-right not to be subjected to gun porn spread around by inconsiderate gun fondlers;
-right not to have to read/hear about gun tragedies every day;
-right not to be intimidated by a gun nut in public;
-right not to have right wing hate groups arming up;
-right to live among decent people (the 93%ers who would never dream of walking around in public with a gun);
-and more.
spin
(17,493 posts)There are currently no states in our nation that totally forbid the concealed carry of firearms in public although some are more restrictive than others on the requirements to do so. No matter where you go in this nation you may encounter someone legally carrying a handgun. Even if you go into a gun free zone, you might be standing next to a criminal who is illegally carrying a gun.
Concealed carry in the United States
Concealed carry or carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), is the practice of carrying a weapon (such as a handgun) in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in close proximity. Not all weapons that fall under CCW controls are lethal. For example, in Florida, carrying pepper spray in more than a specified volume (2 oz.) of chemical requires a CCW permit, whereas anyone may legally carry a smaller, so-called, “self-defense chemical spray” device hidden on their person without a CCW permit.[1][2]
While there is no federal law specifically addressing the issuance of concealed-carry permits, all 50 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either without a permit or after obtaining a permit from local government and/or law enforcement.[3] Illinois had been the last state without such a provision – but its long-standing ban on concealed weapons was overturned in a federal appeals court, on Constitutional grounds. Illinois was required by the court to draft a concealed carry law by July 9, 2013 (including a 30-day extension) at which time the Illinois legislature, over-riding the amendatory veto of the governor who had sought to impose many restrictions, approved concealed carry to begin January 2014, at the latest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
At least in London you could feel fairly safe from gun violence. You would just have to worry about knife crime.
1,000 knife crime victims in London each month, shocking new figures show
Published: 01 July 2013
Up to 1,000 people a month are victims of knife crime in London, according to alarming new statistics.
They show that around 400 a month are being injured in attacks — many of them seriously — while others are being threatened. In the first four months of the year, 11 people were murdered in knife attacks. Four teenagers have been stabbed to death so far this year.
The statistics, obtained after a Freedom of Information request, reveal that there were 1,038 victims of knife crime in London in January, of which 410 were injured and four killed. The remainder were threatened with knives.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/1000-knife-crime-victims-in-london-each-month-shocking-new-figures-show-8681511.html
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to walk out the door.
spin
(17,493 posts)and a fair percentage will carry on a regular basis.
U.S. NEWS
Permits Soar to Allow More Concealed Guns
Proponents Say Practice Cuts Crime; Police Raise Concern
By JACK NICAS and ASHBY JONES CONNECT
July 4, 2013 9:37 p.m. ET
A growing number of Americans are getting permission to carry firearms in public—and under their clothes—a development that has sparked concern among some law-enforcement authorities.
Applications for "concealed-carry" permits are soaring in many states, some of which recently eased permit requirements. The numbers are driven in part by concern that renewed gun-control efforts soon could constrain access to weapons, along with heightened interest in self-defense in the wake of mass killings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo.
Since July 1 of last year, Florida has granted more than 173,000 new concealed-carry permits, up 17% from the year before and twice as many as five years ago, for a total of about 1.09 million permits in the state.
Ohio, meanwhile, is on pace to nearly double last year's total of 65,000 new permits, which would be nearly three times as many as in 2007. And Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wyoming and Nebraska all have nearly matched or surpassed last year's totals with half of 2013 still to go.
A dozen states surveyed for this article, including Texas, Utah and Wisconsin, issued 537,000 permits last year, an 18% increase compared with a year prior and more than double the number issued in 2007. Early figures for 2013 show many states are on pace for their biggest year ever.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323689204578573763575086702
I fear that little you will say will change this trend. Your best solution to reduce your fear of those who legally carry is to move to Great Britain.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 17, 2014, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)
Dunn, the 2nd Amendment white wingers at the Bundy ranch, etc. We are going to have to address this like Australia did in 1996 no matter how loud you guys yell.
spin
(17,493 posts)major changes to our gun laws such as repealing shall issue concealed carry seem unlikely in the near future.
I don't support Cliven Bundy in his effort to avoid paying grazing fees but on the other hand I don't think it is necessary to have another Waco massacre over a bunch of cattle eating grass and stepping on turtles in a desert. There should be a less drastic approach the the BLM can use to resolve this problem without bloodshed.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Thank you GOP.
spin
(17,493 posts)is facing extinction.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Every single one. Remarkable, huh?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2840855
You are absolutely right, in London you can feel safer from homicide than in any city in the US. The main reason for this is the lack of guns -- knives are far less lethal than guns.
spin
(17,493 posts)U.K. Gun Curbs Mean More Violence Yet Fewer Deaths Than in U.S.
By Robert Hutton Apr 24, 2013 6:38 AM ET
The U.K.’s strict gun controls mean it has a lower homicide rate than the U.S. even though there’s more violent crime, according to a study that also found violence in Britain fell over the past decade.
According to the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace, the U.K. had 933 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2012, down from 1,255 in 2003. In the U.S., the figure for 2010 was 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Still, while the U.S. violent-crime rate is less than half Britain’s, its homicide rate between 2003 and 2011 was almost four times as high.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-24/u-k-gun-curbs-mean-more-violence-yet-fewer-deaths-than-in-u-s-.html
I will definitely agree that knifes are less deadly at a distance than firearms. However if a person wishes to kill you and knows something about knife fighting, a knife is as deadly as a handgun at close range. Fortunately most people lack the skill and training to kill swiftly with a knife. A gun is far easier to use.
Of course it could be argued that the reason we have a lower crime rate in the United States than the UK does is because citizens here can own and often carry firearms for self defense.
Crime in the United States has been present since colonization. Crime rates have varied over time, with a sharp rise after World War II, before peaking between the 1970s and early 1990s. Since the early 1990s, crime has declined in the United States,[1] and current crime rates are approximately the same as those of the 1960s.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Realistically there are a number of factors to explain why the crime rate has dropped in our nation which are mentioned in the article.
I find it somewhat interesting that there is a correlation between the drop in the crime rate which began in the early 1990s during the same time period that "shall issue" concealed carry laws were beginning to sweep across our nation. Florida started this trend in 1987 when the state passed its version of "shall issue" concealed carry which became the model for other states to use.
However it would be foolish to attribute the drop in the crime rate to legislation such as concealed carry and castle doctrine. Still such laws did not cause a major increase in the crime rate. Also during this time frame, the sale of firearms in our nation began to absolutely skyrocket and semiautomatic firearms gained popularity over older technology such as revolvers and bolt action rifles.
To me it seems obvious that while more guns may not mean less crime, more guns does not necessarily mean more crime.
That doesn't mean that I feel that we can't make changes to our national gun laws in order to insure that only honest, responsible and sane people can buy and own firearms. I feel the problem is that many in the gun control movement favor banning and restricting certain firearms and place far less emphasis on better regulations on the sale of these items and efforts to stop the straw purchase and the smuggling of firearms.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Pretty remarkable, isn't it? Dispels the notion that our sky-high homicide rates are because the US is a "uniquely violent society" and that it's not just a gun problem.
One note of caution about comparing international "violent crime" is that it is defined differently in different nations. But still, the general trend is, US violent crime rates overall are somewhere in the middle of international comparisons, while our homicide rates are off the charts.
That's because we have more guns.
spin
(17,493 posts)Let's assume that 99.9% of the firearms were removed from civilian hands which of course would never happen.
That could mean that a young stud with a knife could attack me on the street and feel confident that I would have little chance of effectively defending myself. He would look at me and see an elderly man with a bad limp and realize that I am a weak member of the herd and by the law of survival of the fittest, it was his job as a predator to attack me.
There is absolutely no doubt that firearms are used effectively for self defense although there is a large disagreement over how often this occurs. To be more than fair I will use some statistics from a source that strongly supports gun control, the Violence Policy Center.
For victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011 in only 0.8 percent of these instances did the intended victim in resistance to a criminal engage in a self-protective behavior that involved a firearm. For the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crimes. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense.
https://www.vpc.org/press/1304self.htm
That would mean that even a pro gun control site agrees that people, either civilians or off duty police officers, use a firearm for self defense against a violent crime 47,000 times a year. The actual number may be far higher. I don't feel that's insignificant by any means. It's also impossible to know how much of a deterrent firearms owned by civilians are to the criminal element. If only a few citizens had firearms in their homes, how many more home invasions might occur especially in rural areas when the police response takes a long time.
It seems that a good percentage and especially the leadership of many gun control organizations feel all guns are inherently evil and should be banned and confiscated. That's a simplistic way of looking at a complicated problem.
In the wrong hands firearms can be misused and tragedies can result. When owned by responsible, honest and sane citizens they serve many purposes including sport and self defense. The problem is to find a way to insure as much as possible that firearms end up in the right hands, not to ban and confiscate almost all firearms as has been done in nations like Great Britain.
We might also consider finding ways to insure that all people make a living wage and fight social injustice in our society. It might be a good idea to end our failed War on Drugs which has encouraged the development of violent gangs in all of our cities.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But even that number overestimates the number of crimes averted by firearm, because it doesn't tell you whether the use of the gun actually improved the situation for the victim, or whether a non-lethal means of self-defense would have worked out as well, or even better. And since DGUs are counted as reported by victims, it doesn't distinguish between legitimate acts of self-defense versus fights where "the other guy started it". Still, by any measure, guns facilitate far more crimes than then they avert.
To play out your hypothetical scenario: what would happen if you were jumped by a guy with a knife in a no-gun world. Well, it seems to me like you have two basic options. One, just give the guy your money. Two, resist with something like mace rather than a gun. I would suggest option number one, but the mace could probably work too, provided the knife isn't sitting right by your neck.
In a world with guns, your assailant would likely be holding a gun himself, and given that he's jumping you, that puts you in a much more dangerous situation right off the bat. Even if you comply, you can still end up dead because once a gun is pointed at you, it just takes an infinitesmal movement of a finger to end your life. And if you decide to resist, you are effectively getting into a shootout with a criminal -- sure, you might win, but you are gambling with your life.
So I think it's pretty clear that the no-gun world is a better world to get mugged in.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Like he was a Crazy Mayor! 
knr
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That said, I'm very thankful for his efforts to protect me from Big Gulps...
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Moreover, I can't help but think all his nascent-totalitarian efforts "for the public good" are just a distraction from that. But I'm probably wandering into tinfoil hat territory with that. 
frylock
(34,825 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)oneofthe99
(712 posts)Just his stop and frisk should have been enough to lose all support from progressives.
Sending in his attack dogs on the occupy movement , spying on Muslims that committed no crime.
Why do some of you like this guy? I can't stand the asshole
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.