Promising Strategies to Reduce Gun Violence
Related Topics
Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr
The department of justice is really saying "less guns fewer crimes" Between 1994 and 1997 the NY police made 46,198 gun arrests and seized 56,081 arms. Non-fatal shootings fell 62%, the number of homicides fell from a high of 2000 to around 600.
I hope PV is finally listening. Zero tolerance policies towards carrying guns do work and do reduce crime.
I hate to admit it but it also looks like common sense not the nonsense of PV and his Lott obsession.
Earl *********** http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect05-a.html Promising Strategies to Reduce Gun Violence OJJDP Report Deterring Gun Carrying in High-Crime Hotspot Areas One of the key research findings of the last 10 to 15 years has been the discovery of the importance of hotspots of crime. Researchers have recently discovered that even within high-crime areas there are specific locales that generate the majority of calls for police service and response to crime.1 This discovery informs important theoretical work on problem-oriented policing,2 the community policing movement,3 and situational crime prevention.4 Hotspot analyses also have become increasingly important for police departments as they seek to move from a reactive to a proactive model of policing.5 Perhaps most reflective of this orientation is the New York City Police Department's COMPSTAT program, which systematically utilizes hotspot analyses in regular crime analysis meetings involving strategic planning and managerial benchmarking.6 Applying a hotspot perspective to firearm crime suggests a focus on both places and people. Research in Indianapolis found that only 3 percent of the city's addresses accounted for 100 percent of the gun crimes.7 Further, a small number of the city's blocks accounted for a disproportionate number of firearm calls for service. Another study in Washington, D.C., found that a small and select group of youth were arrested repeatedly on gun charges.
This is consistent with research in Boston, which showed that approximately 1,300 gang members, representing less than 1 percent of the city's youth, were responsible for at least 60 percent of the city's youth homicides.8 Youth involved in homicides in Boston, both as victims and suspects, had long histories of involvement in the justice system, leading to the conclusion that "youth homicide was concentrated among a small number of serially offending, gang-involved youths."9 The fact that firearm-related violence is concentrated in select locations within a city also provides opportunities for prevention. As indicated in the program summaries described in this chapter, these opportunities may be based on interventions at specific locales, among certain groups of potential offenders, or may involve a combination of place and person. Two promising approaches that rest on these principles involve directed police patrol and the specific deterrence approach developed in Boston referred to as "pulling levers." Directed police patrol In 1992, the Kansas City Police Department, as part of its Weed and Seed program, implemented a directed patrol initiative in a police beat with very high levels of homicide and firearm-related violent crime.10 This was a beat that included a number of gun crime hotspots. For 6 months, a group of officers patrolled the beat, free from the responsibility of responding to calls for service. The directed patrol officers provided more than 1,200 additional hours of police presence in this beat, issued nearly 1,100 traffic warrants, and made approximately 600 arrests. Primarily relying upon vehicle stops, the police increased the number of firearm seizures by 65percent during the project period. This activity, in turn, was ***ociated with a 49-percent decrease in gun crimes.
Given the success of the Kansas City Gun Experiment and facing an escalating homicide problem, the Indianapolis Police Department implemented a similar directed patrol project in the summer of 1997. The Indianapolis project focused on two areas for a 3-month period. The areas chosen in Indianapolis were two police beats selected for their high levels of violent crime. Two slightly different strategies were employed in each area. The officers working in the east target area utilized a "general deterrence strategy" maximizing the number of police vehicle stops to create a sense of significantly increased police presence. The North District used a "specific deterrence strategy" in which officers focused on stopping individuals suspected of being involved in criminal activity. Essentially, in the East District any type of traffic violation resulted in a stop, whereas in the North District officers were looking for additional bases for suspicion.
Examination of officer activity and output data suggested that the two strategies were implemented in a serious fashion.11 More than 4,800 officer hours resulted in more than 5,200 vehicle stops and just under 1,000 arrests. Homicides in the target areas dropped from 11 in the same 90-day period in 1996 to 1 during the project period. Upon closer inspection, the project appeared to have an effect in the north target area (total gun crimes dropped 29 percent; aggravated ***aults with a gun and armed robbery each declined 40 percent) but not in the east target area (these offenses actually increased there). Surprisingly, given the Kansas City findings, it was the east target area that witnessed the largest increase in gun seizures. The east target area showed a 50-percent increase and the north target area only an 8-percent increase. Thus, the Indianapolis findings raise the question of whether the Kansas City and the Indianapolis north target area effects on firearm crime were due to seizing and removing illegal weapons from hotspot areas or from the increased police attention given to high-risk individuals within these areas.
Pulling levers The notion that increased law enforcement attention to high-risk individuals may be effective in reducing crime receives additional support from the Boston "pulling levers" approach. Having found that in particular neighborhoods a small group of youth with extensive involvement in the justice system accounted for a majority of youth homicides, Boston officials sought to deliver a specific deterrence message to these youth. The result was the two-pronged "pulling levers" program.12 A multiagency law enforcement team convened a series of meetings with chronic gang offenders in which law enforcement communicated new standards for behavior (violence will no longer be tolerated). When the standards were violated, the multiagency law enforcement team responded by imposing all available sanctions (pulling levers). The initial examples of pulling levers with gang members then became the source of discussion in continued meetings with potential offenders. Since Boston implemented the strategy in 1996, youth homicides have fallen by two-thirds.
Firearm-related violence has often been considered largely impervious to law enforcement intervention. The Kansas City, Indianapolis, and Boston projects, and those implemented in other jurisdictions reported in this Report, suggest that this ***umption may simply be erroneous. Certain questions do, however, remain. For example, is it the removal of guns from the streets or the direct communication of a deterrence message that has had an impact? Are youth no longer carrying weapons or have they temporarily ceased using them? Although these and related issues must be addressed, these studies indicate that significant reductions in violent crime may be possible. It appears that interventions based on a more precise understanding of the problem, as in those targeting high-risk individuals in high-risk areas, offer important prevention opportunities.
The following initiatives, including directed patrols, community policing, and other "hotspot" programs, use a common set of strategies to target individuals most likely to carry weapons. Several involve the creation of task forces or other steering committees to coordinate law enforcement efforts and some were funded through national initiatives such as the U.S.
Department of Justice Weed and Seed initiative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes 1. L.W. Sherman, "Hotspots of crime and criminal careers of places," in Crime and Place, edited by J. Eck and D. Weisburd, Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1995.
2. H. Goldstein, Problem-Oriented Policing, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1990.
3. D.H. Bayley, Police for the Future, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994.
4. R.V. Clarke, "Situational crime prevention," in Building a Safer Society, edited by M. Tonry and D. Farrington, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1995; and D. Weisburd, Reorienting Crime Prevention Research and Policy: From the Causes of Criminality to the Context of Crime, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 1997.
5. M.K. Sparrow, M.H. Moore, and D.M. Kennedy, Beyond 911: A New Era for Policing, New York, NY: Basic Books, 1990.
6. W. Bratton and P. Knobler, Turnaround: How America's Top Cop Reversed the Crime Epidemic, New York, NY: Random House, 1998.
7. L.W. Sherman and D.P. Rogan, "Effects of gun seizure on gun violence: 'Hotspots' patrol in Kansas City," Justice Quarterly 12(4):673-693, 1995.
8. D. Kennedy, "Pulling levers: Getting deterrence right," National Institute of Justice Journal (July):2-8, 1998.
9. Kennedy, 1998.
10. Sherman and Rogan, 1995.
11. E.F. McGarrell and S. Chermak, Summary of Results of JPD's 1997 Directed Patrol Initiative, Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute, 1998.
12. Kennedy, 1998.
Richard J ric...@hotmail.com
Such policies do work. Of course, it doesn't make any difference that it has been against the law to carry firearms the areas of New York City and Washington D.C. for decades, eh. The difference here wasn't the law, but good enforcement and application of the existing law.
Damn! Isn't that something the NRA has been calling for for years?
I guess what we need to do is have a door to door search and confiscate all illegal weapons we find. THAT should cut the murder rate tremendously. Now all you have to do is get a judge to issue a search warrant for an entire city.................
Teflon
Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr
I don`t know about Washington, DC but New York has had, relative to other major urban centers lower crime rates. That is not the popular image.
On the other had, American gun manufacturers flooded the country with semi-automatic hand guns in the period after 1986. Here are the figures Year total total handgun violent crimes Manufactured homicide rates 1981 396,197 2,537,000 10,3 1982 372,477 2,628,000 9.6 ?
1983 330,419 1,967,000 8.6 1984 329,232** 1,580,000 8.4 ** 1985 340,942 1,550,000 8.4 ** 1986 376,064 1,428,000 ** 9.0 1987 365,709 1,659,000 8.7 1988 385,934 1,746,000 9.0 1989 410,039 2,031,000 9.3 1990 492,671 1,839,000 10.0 1991 548,667 1,838,266 10.5 * 1992 565,575 1,524,218 10.0 1993 581,697* 2,655,000* 10.1 1994 542,529 2,582,000 9.6 1995 504,421 1,723,000 8.7 1996 458,458 1,484,477 7.9 1997 414,530 1,407,000 7.4 1998 364,776 1,185,000 6.8 1999 338,535 1,331,000 6.2 2000 341,831 1,282,000 6.1 ? ** minimum years, * peak yeares When the problem became clear the local police reacted and cracked down on guns even more. "Stop and frisk" searches were done.
Laws are one thing, enforcement another.
Yes, but in the face of an exceptional threat.
Apparently, "stop and frisk" is good enough, the national violent crimes dropped from nearly 600,000 to nearly half that figure. It is also a question of a cost-effective use of police resources. Would it be more cost effective, even if legal, to search every house, or just a punky looking guy with a bulge under his coat? The household gun ownership in the state of New York is only 20%, half the national average. The chances of finding a handgun even less. So your suggestion has a straman element to it.
Earl
jigsaw1 ...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695)
Subject: Re: Promising Strategies to Reduce Gun Violence From: Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr Date: 1/17/2003 10:37 AM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <BA4DE1AC.93AA%evleth@wanadoo.fr> in article 3E281753.40...@hotmail.com, Richard J at ric...@hotmail.com wrote on 17/01/03 15:46: I don`t know about Washington, DC but New York has had, relative to other major urban centers lower crime rates. That is not the popular image.
On the other had, American gun manufacturers flooded the country with semi-automatic hand guns in the period after 1986. Here are the figures Year total total handgun violent crimes Manufactured homicide rates 1981 396,197 2,537,000 10,3 1982 372,477 2,628,000 9.6 ?
1983 330,419 1,967,000 8.6 1984 329,232** 1,580,000 8.4 ** 1985 340,942 1,550,000 8.4 ** 1986 376,064 1,428,000 ** 9.0 1987 365,709 1,659,000 8.7 1988 385,934 1,746,000 9.0 1989 410,039 2,031,000 9.3 1990 492,671 1,839,000 10.0 1991 548,667 1,838,266 10.5 * 1992 565,575 1,524,218 10.0 1993 581,697* 2,655,000* 10.1 1994 542,529 2,582,000 9.6 1995 504,421 1,723,000 8.7 1996 458,458 1,484,477 7.9 1997 414,530 1,407,000 7.4 1998 364,776 1,185,000 6.8 1999 338,535 1,331,000 6.2 2000 341,831 1,282,000 6.1 ? ** minimum years, * peak yeares When the problem became clear the local police reacted and cracked down on guns even more. "Stop and frisk" searches were done.
============================== "Stop and Frisk" does not mean that a LEO can walk up to anyone on the street and shake him down (frisk) him for a weapon. He has to have a "reasonable cause" ( more than "mere suspicion, but less than probably cause) to stop him.
Justification to stop a person is not justification to frisk him.
However, if a suspect is stopped, the officer has a right to pat down the suspect for weapons for his own protection. ( Terry v Ohio) The criteria for a pat down (frisk) is: 1. There must be reasonable suspicion that the suspect is doing something illegal.
2. Must be in a public place, not in the suspects home.
3. The power to stop is not the power to search.
The power to search comes from finding the person in possession of something illegal, or reason to believe that has commited a crime.. If you find a gun during a pat down, or a knife, or a screwdriver (provided it is not being used as a tool) you then have the right to a total search. Under certain circumstances, warrentless searchs are allowed.
However, if there is a local ordinance requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and the officer has reason to believe that a person is carrying a gun illegally, he has the right to stop him.
Int he state of Florida is it is legal to carry a hand gun in the car without a permit. The officer has the discretion of an arrest depending on the circumstances.
If the gun is holstered with a snap strap holding it in place and sitting next to the driver, it is legal. If it is in a holster without the snap in the same place it is illegal.
If it is under the seat in a snapped holster, it is legal. If it is under the seat without a constraint it is illegal.
On several occ***ions, I have stopped someone for a speeding violation and the drive advised me "officer, I have a gun (in my brief case, under the seat, tucked into my belt, etc) I have/do not have a permit.) Ninety nine point nine times out of a hundred this guy is doing nothing wrong.
While I have every legal right to remove him from his car and shake it down, I and brother officers generally do not. A traffic violation, on face value in itself, is not grounds for an arrest.
Richard J ric...@hotmail.com
Popular image or not, the truth is the truth. Would you like to compare their crime rates to the urban area where I live, or perhaps the urban areas around Niagra Falls, New York? I can't speak for New York State, but I can guarantee you that virtually every household around here has both long arms and handguns, and the violent crime rate is lower than New York City's. Want to bet?
If there is really a direct correlation between firearm ownership and violent crime as you claim, Earl, how come the murder rates per 100,000 in rural areas of the nation (which are usually as well armed as many armies) don't come close to cities with strict firearms controls?
I can think of several murders over the last couple of decades in the area where I live, but the only two firearms murders which come to mind were two murders by members of the same family. The other handful have been accomplished with everything from sissors to a baseball bat. If firearms possession is the cause of high murder rates as you claim, woiuldn't it stand to reason that rural areas which are heavily armed should have correspondingly higher murder rates than cities like New York City where it is against the law to possess a handgun without a liscense?
<snip> I do see a couple of problems with this: 1. Probable cause 2. Profiling If police deliberately target a particular group to search, isn't that profiling? If there is no reason to stop and search a citizen other than their appearance, where is the probable cause? I'm willing ot bet that in the end, the A.C.L.U. will have a field day with this one.
This is a moot point. If the existing laws are properly enforced, armed crime, violent armed crimes is reduced. New laws are not necessarily needed, better enforcement is the differentiating factor. Just as the NRA says.
The measures also usually include prosecuting those possessing firearms and small amounts of drugs under Federal laws which carry minimum mandatory sentencing. Thus, someone with an ounce of pot and a pistol winds up with twenty years minimum sentence in Federal prison.
The techniques of selective crackdown isn't new, Earl. It was, I believe, actually pioneered in Atlanta, Georgia. (if memory serves me correctly) It is effective, and uses already existing laws to reduce armed criminal activity. Both you and the NRA are in agreement then.
What we need to do is enforce the laws we ALREADY have effectively to reduce crime.
Teflon
jigsaw1 ...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695)
Subject: Re: Promising Strategies to Reduce Gun Violence From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespam_desm...@zeouane.org Date: 1/17/2003 11:28 AM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <kua90b.6s31.ln@lievre.voute.net> le 17 Jan 2003 16:14:39 GMT, dans l'article <20030117111439.27866.00000...@mb-ml.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695 <jigsaw1...@aol.com> a dit ...
{ snip } If it's legal, how can an officer have discretion as to whether to arrest or not ?
{ snip } Desmond Coughlan =============================== It is a judgement call.
Besides if anyone is dumb to carry an unsecured gun on the seat next to them, the derserve to get arrested for Stupidity in the First Degree. They could also get shot.
It depends on the circumstances.
Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr
I was talking about New York City. Past and present.
I am comparing cities, big to moderate size cities, you have to compare NYC with Chicago LA, etc. Otherwise one is mixing apples and oranges. I thought youhad been looking at this area long enough to know about this.
Take 1997. Take to the total crime index NYC 4,862 Houston is 7,264 Dallas is 9,335 San Antonio 8,050 For murder, the figures were 10.5, 14.1, 19.4, and 9.2 For rape, the figures are 29.5, 43.9, 69.0, and 59.5 NY state itself, the total crime index was 3,589, Texas is 5,112. The national average was 4,616. So for all your executions and the worlds record in incarcerations the state of Texas has not even reached average.
NY has. The home gun ownership figures in the state of NY is about 20%, Texas is 49%. So you have twice as many guns.
The gun possession I am talking about it central city handguns, now mainly semi-automatics. In writing what you wrote about "rural areas" you have missed the point. Where do you think the gun violence is occurring. If you want to talk about suicides (self-violence), that is another problem, there high gun ownership states have a higher suicide rate.
This is modified in states which have a high black population because they have a suicide rate one half of the white population (a fact rarely recognized because people think of the high homicide rate of blacks.
Here are the suicide and gunownership data; http://www.iusb.edu/~jmcintos/usa2000summary.htm from http://www.iusb.edu/~jmcintos/usa2000states.htm http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/SAN01-25.pdf table A4 suicide rate per 100,000 % Households with guns Alaska 22.0 51* Nevada 21.3 43 New Mexico 18.7 47 Montana 17.8 75 Wyoming 17.3 88 Arizona 16.1 46 Colorado 14.8 50 Oregon 14.8 58 Oklahoma 14.7 55 Utah 13.8 51 Florida 13.6 34 West Virginia 13.6 66 Arkansas 13.5 60 Alabama 13.3 58 Tennessee 13.2 53 Idaho 13.1 77 Kentucky 13.1 52 South Dakota 12.9 67 Vermont 12.9 71 Missouri 12.7 51 North Carolina 12.5 50 Washington 12.5 48 Kansas 12.2 43 Maine 12.2 48 Hawaii 11.6 12 Nebraska 11.6 52 Indiana 11.4 53 Pennsylvania 11.3 47 South Carolina 11.3 48 Wisconsin 11.1 48 Virginia 11.0 41 Delaware 10.8 29 New Hampshire 10.8 36 North Dakota 10.8 50 Georgia 10.7 55 Louisiana 10.7 61 Mississippi 10.5 62 Texas 10.1 49 Iowa 10.0 51 Michigan 9.8 44 Ohio 9.7 33 Connecticut 9.2 17 Maryland 9.1 38 Minnesota 9.1 39 California 8.8 34 Illinois 8.2 25 Rhode Island 7.5 19 New Jersey 6.8 16 M***achusetts 6.2 16 New York 6.2 22 Washington DC 4.4 20* Estimated from the ratio of suicides with guns to total suicide. See the Cook reference for explanation Earl
"A Planet Visitor" abc...@zbqytr.ykq
Inasmuch as you've also admitted you have no 'common sense,' how would you know? Your words -- "If I had common sense..." and later on -- "I said I did not have common sense..." PV ...
jigsaw1 ...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695)
Subject: Re: Promising Strategies to Reduce Gun Violence From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespam_desm...@zeouane.org Date: 1/17/2003 4:19 PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <50s90b.4g41.ln@lievre.voute.net> le 17 Jan 2003 21:05:02 GMT, dans l'article <20030117160502.10427.00000...@mb-fl.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695 <jigsaw1...@aol.com> a dit ...
I wasn't poking fun, Jigsaw. It just strikes me as strange that a police officer has 'discretion' to arrest someone, when he's not doing anything wrong.
Or was it a typo ? Is it _legal_ or _illegal_ to carry an unsecured weapon on the front seat of a car ? If it's legal, I can't possibly see how a cop can exercise discretion. If it's legal, he shuts the **** up, and walks away. That's another matter, and not one with which I necessarily disagree.
Desmond Coughlan =============================== There is a criteria that is generally used.
For a gun to be concealed, it must take two seperate actions to place it into a fireing action...i.e.: unfastening the clasp (or whatever holds it in the holster) and pulling it out of the holster.
If it takes on action such as pulling it from the seat, or taking it out of an unsecured holster, it is only one action and therefore illegal.
Most officers use "discretionary arrest powers" during the days work. For example, you catch someone with a joint. With out discretion, you would have to arrest him and charge him with a drug violation. Frankly, its a pain in the ***. Most cops really dont care whether you smoke a little smoke or not. So they tell the dude to throw it to the winds. As long as the guy (or girl) dosent make a pain in the *** out of himself or herself, there is no problem.
(Its a one time deal, dont get caught a second time by the same cop.) The same with someone who has a bit to much to drink. By the law, they should be popped and jailed. But in small towns, especially small towns, if there is a sober driver around, usually that is enough to let the gang drive away.
(Provided no damage has been done and no one has been hurt, and everyone yessirs and nosirs.
Here is another one. You go to a barroom fight. No big deal, just a little to much booze, some words are exchanged and one guy hits another in the face bloodying a nose (Misdemeanor battery).
You get there, seperate the two combatents and talk to them. Neither one wants to press charges. But you see the outline of a four inch folding buck knife in the pocket of one of the fighters. You know the guy is on parole or probation and charging him with CCW will result in him going to the county jail for four or five months. You also know that this guy has a family, busts his *** five and half days a week, gets drunk on saturday night and repents at Sunday-go-to-meeting. They guys dosent give you any crap.
So what do you do. Make a cheap arrest to keep your stats up for the month, or do yousend him on his way. Ifyou go by the book, he goes to jail, his family goes on welfare, the kids go without a father...its a ripple effect.
Discretionry enforcement does not extend to felonies. Cut someone, hit him in the head with a baseball bat, shoot him,get caught with feleony weight come (or marijuana) and there aint no discretion.
It aint just eating donuts and drinking coffee Dezi. Its probably the same in France. You make a lot of judgement calls and most of the time you are right but sometimes you are wrong.
Jigsaw
dollycough ...@aol.com (Dr. Dolly Coughlan )
com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de !uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail Poor Desi, drunk again! The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond Coughlan lacks conviction in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived in Google. Please feel free to use it to your advantage.
dollycough ...@aol.com (Dr. Dolly Coughlan )
ews.dfci.harvard.edu!news.harvard.edu!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.n et!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail Poor Desi, drunk again! The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond Coughlan lacks conviction in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived in Google. Please feel free to use it to your advantage.
Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr
As I understand it if you are arrested for carrying a gun in NY city that automatically makes you an accused felon.
Again, arrested with a gun makes you a criminal in NY City!
You are legally not supposed to carry a gun in NY City.
One suspect that proper looking middle cl*** Whites are not stopped and serach so that makes a problem of profiling if one is selective. The number to focus on is the unproductive "stop and frisks", are 100 people being h***eled for every arrest or how many? There has to be some indication of cause to stop and frisk. Etc etc.
There has been some complaint about this policy and if you want to become more broadly informed you should visit the Cato Institute, site. This is libertarian and represents a departure from the authoritarian right's idea of control.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp56.pdf The article on "We Own the Night" Basically, there have been too many arrests thrown out. The potential for abuse is great. The same complain about zero tolerance "bullshit" has come from the left. I mentioned a couple of years ago the book "Les Prisons de la mis??re" by Lo??c Wacquant who also specifically pointed out that a policy of over arrest in New York produced to many charges thrown out. I might add that Cato is pitted against the current administration's policy of holding terrorists as "enemy combatants". If you are into going after fascist types, you should forget little old liberal socialist (and slum lord) me and go after the present Attorney General! And the president who supports him.
Anyway, yes, overkill is a problem. In any action of this type, backing by the community is essential. Blacks are as anti-crime, more so as being the major victims of it, as any upper cl*** White. They are quite willing to work with the police as long as they are not broadly and irresponsibly targeted for shake downs.
Earl
"A Planet Visitor" abc...@zbqytr.ykq
NO IT DOES NOT!!! There is such a thing as CONVICTION. Or do you presume that 'arrest' MEANS 'conviction'??? Sometimes your words are troubling to me, Earl. You would NEVER say "Again, arrested for murder makes you a murderer in NY City." I swear... your brain is becoming scrambled. And you have this 'mean' habit of twisting concepts to fit your agenda.
<rest of absolutely incoherent rambling clipped> PV
Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr
Ah, that IMHO bullshit again!
Perhaps you were not clear because you did not know. You usually don`t study something unless I pin you down, and THEN pretend you already knew!
Obviously! You can you seem me smiling as I see you wiggling.
A Slam dunk unless you have a permit or are rich.
Mostly and mostly anywhere. Murder charges have a high conviction rate.
Earl
"A Planet Visitor" abc...@zbqytr.ykq
Pardon me??? I have never been so furious at your clumsy wiggling, and avoidance of the totally moronic conclusion you made that being arrested is being convicted as a felon.
Jesus, Earl... you need HELP!!!!!! More help than I can provide.
You have SAID ----
"Again, arrested with a gun makes you a criminal in NY City!" It ****ING DOES NOT!!!!!! How clear is that???? Where is your brain??? A 'CONVICTION' of gun possession makes you a criminal in NY City!." Do you know the DIFFERENCE between 'arrest' and 'conviction'? It seems you made a very big deal out of it when we argued about recidivism. So apparently you 'know'....
but are now being DECEPTIVELY DEVIOUS.
I tried to be nice, and show that your words also imply you believe "Again, arrested for murder makes you a murderer in NY City." But you are just too dumb to understand how offensive you first comment is to any 'reasonable abolitionist.' I would suppose your next step is to say that 'Again, arrested for murder means the DP in NY City.' PV PS -- The 'list' is growing, Earl. And soon you'll find that the ONLY statements you can make, are those that make no logical or legal sense.
"A Planet Visitor" abc...@zbqytr.ykq
Exactly how many of those do you presume are NOT typos? NSW is one. And then there is .... ummm... and then... ummm ... chee...
that's IT! So once again... since desi just keeps wanting to be spanked ..
Let's examine his silliness that are not typos. Of course, if I wished to engage in pointing out his 'typos' I'd again overload his statistics program.
1) How many continents are there? Typo?? Get real.
2) What's the difference between 'imports' and 'exports'? Typo? ho ho ho 3 ) Who confused Hemingway with John Donne? Typo?? Nah.. your 'intellectual' stupidity.
4) Who had no idea what Apate represents? Typo? Nah.. see 3).
5 ) Who became totally confused and erratic when I used the word 'eisoptrophobia' which clearly was an appropriate application of the term?
Typo? Hardly. See 3).
6) Who claimed Judge Zobel was not empowered to 'overturn' the verdict?
Typo?? Ho ho ho.. Not really. Just making the biggest fool of yourself that anyone has ever accomplished in Usenet.
7) Who was ignorant enough not to apologize for making an *** of himself in insults about Judge Zobel's powers? Typo?? ho ho ho. Not really.
Same as 6).
8) Who confused an 'appeal petition' by the prosecution with a ruling from the State Supreme Court? Typo?? ho ho ho. Same as 6).
9) Who argued against 'the doctrine of punishment' for criminals?
Typo? No... just stupidity.
10) Who has been unable to decide if they fear or do not fear death?
Typo? No, just another inability to ever stay consistent.
11) Who claimed that released murderers are less likely to murder again than persons who have never murdered before? Typo?? No, just proof that you are 'arithmetic challenged.' 12) Who claimed that 'it is not necessary to prove that the DP does not deter' for it to be true? Typo? No, just proof that you are 'logic challenged.' 13) Who claimed that 'the dead cannot be honored'? Typo? No.. just stupidity.
14) Who claimed that Lockerbie was caused by 'wind shear'? Typo?
No... just ignorance.
15) Who claimed the Balkans are not in Europe? Typo? No... see 14).
16) Who claimed that in matters of morals, Europe has led the world for over 2000 years? Typo? No just an immoral statement in itself.
17) Who claimed that 'quote' is not a noun? Typo? No... just an inability to read the OED.
18) Who claimed that 'America' and the 'United States' are not synonyms?
Typo? No... see 17) 19) Who claimed that 'none' of the terrorists in the WTC attack knew they were about to commit suicide? Typo? No... see 12) 20) Who claimed in one breath to commute all sentences to life, and then in the next said they were not in favor of life imprisonment? Typo? No...
See 10) 21) Who confused arithmetic with algebra? Typo? No... just an attempt to appear 'intellectual,' which failed miserably.
22) Who claimed that mathematics is not a language? Typo? No... just unaware of your betters, called Galileo, who eloquently demonstrated it is a language.
23) Who claimed he would 'gamble' on the lives of potential innocent victims of murder? Typo? No. just more of 16) 24) Who accused a poster to this group of having 'firebombed his flat?' Typo?
No... just a lie.
25) Who then claimed that he had NOT accused that poster of having 'firebombed his flat'? Typo? Nah, again.. just another lie.
26) Who claimed he had been responsible for having another poster sent to prison? Typo... nah... just another lie.
27) And who believes that calling another a '****wit' represents 'articulate abolition'? Typo? Nah ... just stupidity.
And when you finish with those, concrete head... I have another group of the most silly 'arguments' claims, and lies ever seen in Usenet, all from your pen.
PV Am I obsessed with fighting 'evil'? Damn... I'm 'Superman' when it comes to fighting desi's 'forces of evil.' References to a post which insightfully pronounced of desi --
"'Cancerous' is almost a compliment when one views most of desi's comments -- other forms spring more easily to mind --
it is a parasitic diarrhea of the brain... it is crazy chick disease transferred to our thinking process -- it is a swarm of latrine flies settling on our ability to process information --- it is maggots feasting on the bodies of numberless victims of murder. It is madness. utter madness. It is Desmond Coughlan." Every evil, vile thought that has ever swept across this group from desi's pen, as Genghis Kahn (or Attila the Hun, if you prefer) swept his broad scythe of rape, death and destruction, in long, broad, excruciating strokes across Europe, stand as stark images of his perverse character. And we stand witness to that depravity.
Richard J ric...@hotmail.com
Not at all. The NRA believes present law as are sufficient to control the problem as long as they are enforced. In truth, the laws are often not enforces as they should be. When they are, the result is a reduction in armed violence wherever they are properly applied.
That this occurs, that reports like Earl's post are possible speaks to the truth of the allegations. Laws only effect law abiding citizens.
Criminals don't give a shit about voluntarily following the law, so all more laws will do is farther restrict the honest people.
One thing everyone seems to forget is that we ALREADY have quite a few firearms controls. It is illegal to own certain weapons without expensive and difficult to acquire, special Federal Firearms permits which have to be renewed on a regular basis. All firearms purchased since the 60' except those purchased from individuals are ALREADY registered with the Federal government under present AT&F regulations.
There is ALREADY a waiting period and security check to purchase a new weapon. The only people who can enter a firearms dealer and purchase a firearm immediately are law enforcement personnel.
Personally, I don't have a bit of problem outlawing ***ault rifles and restricted ownership of handguns. Unfortunately, as we've seen in Australia and Canada, the domino theory is used by firearm opponents to eliminate of severely restrict all firearms ownership, and eventually, the aristocracy winds up owning the majority of firearms as in the UK.
To the American public, this is not acceptable.
Teflon
"John Rennie" j.renn...@ntlworld.com
snip Sometimes Richard's anti UK sentiment bubbles over into pure farce. 'You CANNOT be serious' as the horrible McInroe would say.
Richard J ric...@hotmail.com
Which group of people own the majority of privately owned firearms in the UK, John? Would you say it was likely the poor, middle cl***, or upper cl***?
Teflon
"John Rennie" j.renn...@ntlworld.com
The farmers. Shooting is not barred to those with an average income.
Those with high incomes can afford the best shoots. English aristocracy and high incomes do not necessarily come together except in your mind.
You average high income shooter is a city yuppie (they come from every cl***).
| To Top |