Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

If my Twitter feed at work is any indication, President Obama isn't exactly being welcomed in Roseburg with open arms today. Unless you mean the other type of arms, that is. I'm seeing tons of pics and videos of a large number of protestors.

 

I mean, you know that New York City has some of the strictest gun regulation in the country, right? Saying Stop-and-Frisk has saved thousands of lives, without acknowledging the gun laws present in the city is all kinds of disingenuous. A New York State carry license isn't even valid in the city without an NYC endorsement.

To obtain a carry permit you need:
- Two photographs taken within 30 days
- Birth certificate
- Proof of citizenship
- Military discharge papers (if you served)
- Proof of residence
- Prior arrest information (even if the case is dismissed)
- Order of protection information (if one has ever been filed against you)
- Proof of business ownership (if you are obtaining a premises carry license)
- Letter of necessity (why do you need it?)
- Application fee of $340
- Fingerprint fee of $100

In addition, you must have your permit recertified every five years to update and verify your information.

Even with a license, firearms are not permitted inside courthouses or government buildings, roadside rest stops, or state parks.

Magazines may not carry more than 10 rounds and only seven rounds may be loaded.

New York is also a "may issue" state, meaning that an application will not necessarily be granted just because it is submitted, unlike "shall issue" states such as Texas. They actually issue exceedingly few permits within the city unless there is a clearly defined necessity. Typically, business owners and security guards are the few who receive them, and they are restricted from bringing the firearms off premises.

Possession of assault weapons is a felony.

Background checks are required on sales of ammunition, not just firearms and all private sales require a background check as well.

It is a felony to commit "straw purchases," using someone who will pass a background check to purchase a firearm for someone who won't.

So let's not pretend Stop-and-Frisk is the magic elixir to stop gun crime.

 

What changed between when NYC's homicides were 2,000+ per year vs. when they dropped to 300 per year; gun laws, or policing methods?

 

The real question is why is the mass shooting problem so much worse here than the rest of the first world--what is the primary source of that discrepancy? It is NOT mental illness. There's not a significantly higher percentage of mentally ill people here to explain it, but there IS an immensely higher percentage of people with immediate access to deadly firearms.

And, of course, the other problem with the "it's mental illness, not guns" talking point is that the same people who bleat it immediately after each massacre are the ones who supported gutting our mental health care system and refuse to spend more to improve it. When a Republican politician utters that line following a massacre the very next question out of the interviewer's mouth should be along the lines of "well, congressman, then will you go on record as being in support of increased tax spending on mental health care..."

If the answer's not yes, then really they support doing nothing ...nothing about guns ...nothing about mental illness ...they're simply happy with a system where we periodically sacrifice a pack of kids to appease the NRA crowd. And they should be told so.

But, of course, interviewers almost never do anything like that. Just nod and let em spout the usual post-massacre talking points ...and then do it again the exact same way after the next one a couple months later.

 

So, the article about the study is misleading, but that doesn't matter, because the real story is...

 

Chicago has really strict gun laws, too, pern.

 

Nothing new there.

Watch RFK deliver speech on gun control in Roseburg, Ore., weeks before his assassination

 

So Roseburg is the problem?

 

Both. Along with many other factors, including the end of the crack epidemic, the reduction in lead paint poisoning (seriously) and others. Also, the policing methods that changed went beyond Stop-and-Frisk (and please, let's stop with the "Stop-Question-and-Frisk" thing you've been doing).
CompStat allowed police to focus their presence in higher crime areas and NYC hired more officers. They began cracking down on fare jumpers and other petty crimes, that were symptomatic of more serious offenses.

Again, Stop-and-Frisk alone didn't save thousands of lives. An entirely revamped approach to policing did. It should also be noted that New York City's drop in crime rate began prior to 1990, but the homicide rate is what people like to focus on.

Interestingly, New York City's pattern of a rise in homicides beginning in 1960 and peaking in 1990, followed by a steady decrease in the 25 years hence is mirrored by an overall pattern in cities nationwide.

 

So, it was a change in policing, and not gun laws that made the difference.

I'm glad to see that we agree on this point.

 

Must be difficult to drive with such a myopic perspective.

 

And for the record, no, I don't agree that gun laws did not make a difference, and no, I don't agree with your original premise that stop-and-frisk was solely responsible for saving thousands of lives.

As I said, it's disingenuous to credit stop-and-frisk, without acknowledging other factors, such as the other changes in police methodology, environmental factors, the end of the crack epidemic and, yes, gun regulations. I'm sure you've heard of the Brady Bill.