10 gunshots just fired outside of my window

[EnfantTerrible]

Police cars and Ambulence racing to the scene... helicopters flying over my neighborhood!
I'm inside with my two yr old and I hear 3 shots then a pause then 7 more very deliberate and even shots. I have no idea what's going on but I'm a little freaked out...

I live in Inwood NYC... anyone else live around here?

So much for gun control. NRA can kiss my ass!

[shoelace414]

1. if you had a gun

you could have fired it out the window at whoever was firing in your neighborhood...


..NRA

[EnfantTerrible]

5. Right?

That's just what they'd say, too. They'll use this as one more example of why we need assault rifles on the streets of NYC.

[Wcross]

27. But aren't guns illegal in NYC? How is it possible?

How is it possible that someone was shooting a gun when they are illegal in NYC?

[DireStrike]

57. They aren't... second amendment.

Yeah I know, don't start in with arguing what it means.

The point is if guns were illegal anywhere in America, it would be precedent against that interpretation. It hasn't happened.

Guns aren't illegal anywhere. There might be more restrictions, especially on concealed weaponry, but not outlawing.

I read more people downthread saying you can't have a gun in NYC... is this a myth? Is it real? I live in NYC and I don't know for sure now...

[flordehinojos]

18. heaven forbid! you could get into a lot of trouble.

[ComerPerro]

19. lol

[Sannum]

2. oh my god!!!

:hug:

[Telly Savalas]

3. Well at least your neighborhood is polite...

since it's armed.

Stay away from the windows and stay cool. You'll be alright.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

4. How terrifying!

I'm sure you have already locked your doors, but just in case. I would close the curtains and keep baby away from any windows too. Good luck to you.

[EnfantTerrible]

7. Locked. shut. daughter fast asleep.

Luck received and gladly.

[hiley]

14. amazing what children

can nap through, isn't it ?
let us know you are okay.
hiley

[EnfantTerrible]

24. All is much calmer now

Kids are amazing. Ignorance is bliss...

[hiley]

26. Thank you for replying and letting everyone know

it is calmer, anytime you need a little help pm me if you like.
My children are all grown up, now.
I still remember how it feels when you are responsible for innocent little children, though.
We had 4 and 3 of them are stair steps. Born 1977, ( 1981,1982 & 1983 it was very interesting but overwhelming when I thought of protecting all at the same time.
hugs,
hiley

[Andromeda]

78. Just stay away from the windows.

K? Glad you're safe.

[tmooses]

6. I hope your okay-please keep safe. Re: your remarks about the NRA-

I had worked for 13 years in city housing projects and other high crime areas as a telephone company repairman/installer and would go balistic
when I would hear the NRA types talk about how everybody would be safe when everybody is armed bullshit. There were guns in everybody's apartments that I worked in and kids were being shot at weekly walking to the school bus. I have no idea what kind of reality these NRA types live in but they need to spend some serious time in inner city areas
with families that have to deal with this type of crap everyday.

[EnfantTerrible]

12. Too true...

NRA types have no idea what a concentration of gun owners in an urban environment creates.

[getmeouttahere]

13. Well said, tmooses....

reminds me of an episode of "The Thin Blue Line" to illustrate how different the thinking is in England...here's the exchange...

"you are denying my friend his rights" (to own a gun)

"but what about the rights of those who do not wish to live next to an armed man? This town is a human nest"...unfortunately I don't remember the rest of the exchange, but you get the idea...

we've long since lost the upper hand on this issue, but as you can see, the Brits come at it from the right angle

[EnfantTerrible]

22. Wish we could come at it from the same angle

but the pioneering days of this country's history resonate for ever here no matter how "civilized" we supposedly become.

[applegrove]

51. I think you hit the nail on the head. NRA are hypocrites until they

themselves live in drug infested neighborhoods. We should tell them to. And then get back to us with their routines.

[hiley]

8. No, I don't live anywhere near there

but I will keep you and your family in my thoughts. It is so scary, I know since where we used to live there were gun shots and gang activity daily. We live on the other side of town now and still have violence and occasional gun play.
I am so sorry you are there alone with your 2 year old.
hiley

[cally]

9. Stay inside, stay away from the windows,

and stay safe. :hug: Let us know what happens.

[warrens]

10. Stay low and away from windows

Good luck. I had a night like that with my daughter in Brooklyn.

[hiley]

11. Whenever gun shots are close

get your self and your baby down low to the floor and further inside your home.
inner sanctum.
hugs to you.
hiley

[RamboLiberal]

55. Exactly - unless you have very thick concrete/brick walls

Best place to be would be the basement or an interior room. It's amazing the materials bullets can easily penetrate.

[jody]

15. It is possible that the individuals firing those shots were prohibited

by law from owning firearms. If that is true, then the issue is enforcing existing law so how might one do that in your area?

Would you support a house to house search of all people who are prohibited from owning firearms?

The issue of gun control is not clear cut but the Democratic Party Platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

[EnfantTerrible]

20. Absolutely would not support

house to house searches. Don't have any answers to that dilemma. I don't believe guns should be legal for anyone but law enforcement. I believe the 2nd Amendment was drafted at a time when it was a matter of survival to own a gun. GetMeOuttaHere's post above is accurate as to how feel.

[jody]

31. Then you don't support that part of our party platform. n/t

[EnfantTerrible]

37. I guess not then.

I must admit to being unaware that conducting house to house searches was part of the party platform.

[jody]

38. My reply was not clear. I was talking about the Second Amendment

that you said you didn't support.

[EnfantTerrible]

41. Okay then...

No. I do not believe that the second ammendment is relavant or necessary now.

[getmeouttahere]

32. So it's not just our fascination with Jack Nicholson....

that we share, EnfantTerrible...thanks for the vote of confidence, for lack of a better term.

[warrens]

23. It's NYC, no one can own a gun

[jody]

33. If so, then more laws won't help. Perhaps one approach is to allow

law enforcement officers to search without warrant, every house and building for guns. That might require a substantial increase in personnel.

Another approach is to give a person convicted of possessing a firearm regardless of age, a mandatory long term in prison. Of course that would be somewhat expensive.

The answer to the crime problem and illegal firearms in major urban areas has not been found however, there is no evidence that preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their inherent, natural, and inalienable right of self defense reduces crime.

SCOTUS has said that government is not obligated to protect an individual unless that person in custody. The decision to defend one's self and loved ones is a personal choice and firearms, particularly handguns are the most effective, efficient tool for that job. That's one reason the Democratic Party supports the Second Amendment.

[EnfantTerrible]

47. Handguns being the most effective and efficient tool

for protecting one's self and loved ones is arguable, at best.

I don't believe that in a gun-free society anyones rights to self defense would be hindered, but I think we would find a decrease in crimes committed with guns. I don't know where it is stated (other than the 2nd ammendment) that it is an inherent, natural, inalienable right for human beings to carry guns.

[One_Life_To_Give]

48. Depends on where you are

In NYC versus rural Alaska, for example. People walking around NYC don't normally have to worry about being eaten.

[EnfantTerrible]

62. As I said, it is arguable.

n/t

[jody]

49. Pennsylvania stated in its constitutions when

it was a sovereign state, 28 September 1776, “I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

Pennsylvania then added under rights “XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

Vermont added the same statement in its constitution 1777 but used "unalienable" in lieu of "inalienable". The majority of our states have similar acknowledgments in their constitutions.

Because the right of self defense is inalienable, it cannot be given away even when the states ratified the Constitution. The right of self defense and keeping and bearing arms is either protected by the Second or Ninth Amendment.

Handguns are the choice of professionals for self defense. Note that law enforcement officers as employees of the state do not have an inalienable right to bear arms, that right is granted by a government.

[EnfantTerrible]

53. We are not talking about professionals...

I've already stated that I support law enforcement having guns. The problem is that non professionals have guns. While I acknowledge your constitutional accumen, I personally do not believe that we are born with the right to use guns. I don't believe that the right to shoot someone is natural or inherent. This is just my opinion.

[jody]

56. You asked for a citation and I gave you one. You say you disagree

and that's OK but that does not give you are anyone else the right to deny an inalienable right to others. There are other inalienable rights than self defense and I support all of them.

The beauty of our government is that it is supposed to protect the rights of the minority and it has been fairly successful until the Republicans tried shenanigans like killing the filibuster procedure.

Republicans would appoint judges for life that through their interpretations change our basic law just as effectively and more efficiently than amending our Constitution. Worst case scenario, Repugs would have 50 senators plus Cheney approve Bush's nominees and senators from the smallest 25 states represent about 16% of our population. Within those 25 smallest states, it only takes about 8% of our population to elect those 50 senators. In that sense, Republicans would have a small minority determine who interprets our basic laws.

[EnfantTerrible]

60. Again...

i am not trying to take away anyones right to protect themselves... I don't agree that a gun in particular is an inalieble right. A gun is not the only means of self defense.

I would love to continue this discussion, but I have to go to work.

I'll check back in around midnight NY time.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas with me... I hope we can continue to have a dialogue about this.

[jody]

66. Have a good evening at work and a peaceful night for your children.

Please visit the Gun Rights & Gun Control forum here on DU for an exciting and contentious exchange of views.

:hi:

[EnfantTerrible]

72. I'll check it out

Thanks again.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

58. the right to free speech is neither natural or inherent either then

nt

[EnfantTerrible]

61. In my opinion that is not even a relevant argument to make.

n/t

[SlavesandBulldozers]

95. i'm not arguing that one has an inherent right to shoot somebody

hahahhaha if that's how you took my statement. just wanted to make that clear:)

my take on the Constitution is that the founders placed self-expression alongside self-defense. I'm not really emotionally attached to the gun-control argument though - I think it's a waste of energy. And i think that there are valid arguments on both sides of the RKBA debate.

[EnfantTerrible]

97. My take is that free speech

is akin to freedom of thought which is something that we are born with... it's biological and therefore natural and an inherent right... owning a gun, in my opinion, is nothing akin to that. Regardless of the framers ideas about the right to arms. As a society we evolve and so should our ideas about the framers intentions. We should take into consideration the environment in which these ideas were adopted and then determine if they are helping us to progress or hindering the process.

[Retired AF Dem]

93. Professionals?

You mean like ten cops shooting at an unarmed man over 100 times?

[solinvictus]

81. I guess my next question would be, what do you do with multiple assailants

Predatory criminals often work in groups either on the street or while committing home invasions. If you don't believe that a gun prohibition would hinder self defense, what would you suggest as an answer for multiple attackers?
I'll give you an example from here in Birmingham. About 5-6 years ago, a group of criminals invaded a home in a neighborhood looking for drugs. Now, the neighborhood is indeed considered to be pretty rough, but the house in question was owned by a blue collar worker and his family. The criminals took the children and tied them up in a closet while they essentially beat and molested the mother while interrogating her about the location of drugs and money. The husband came home and immediately spotted a strange car in the driveway, which alarmed him to take out his pistol. When he came inside, there was a gunfight in which he was killed, but he took two out of three of the attackers with him. When the media interviewed his wife, she credited his actions with saving her and her children's lives as the attackers were threatening to kill her over the stash of non-existent drugs and money.
Guns are tools, they do not and can not act of their own accord. Like any tool, a gun's purpose depends upon the intent of the user. People commit homicide with ball bats, kitchen knives, yard tools, flammable liquid, you name it. I understand your concern, but as one who's been in a similar situation twice, I can't imagine myself not having the ability to return fire on an assailant. Human predators speak a single language; force. If you meet deadly force with the same, the opportunity cost becomes far too high for a human predator and they tend to leave. That is the purpose of a firearm in the hands of a law abiding citizen.

[marions ghost]

85. yes handguns as THE efficient defense tool for the average

American is arguable. I think this is the point that is often missed.

Handguns as personal protection for the general public is just not practical (never mind whatever else you may think of having killing devices around the house). It isn't a workable solution for the majority--there are so many people who can't or won't get involved with guns. A lot of people will not have the agility or experience to use them ie. my Dad cant even operate a staple gun, much less a handgun. My mother wouldn't have one because her own father got killed in a hunting accident when she was a child. There are so many people who have an aversion to owning and operating guns. In my own experience I know of 10 gun deaths in my "safe and desirable" town over the last ten years that affected me deeply. Not one of them was justified.

I DO think that self-defense strategies that don't require physical strength or dexterity make a LOT of sense however. I support self-defense classes in my own community. But can many of us say with confidence that we could responsibly operate our own lethal weapon--nah, I don't see it.

[jody]

86. If handguns are not the most effective, efficient tool for self defense,

then why do law enforcement personnel carry them?

Do you believe police officers would replace their handguns with "self-defense strategies that don't require physical strength or dexterity"?

[EnfantTerrible]

87. I think that you are, perhaps, purposely

missing the point... law enforcement officers are trained extensively in the use of handguns. They are professionals. It is the general public having guns that is the concern being expressed here. People who do not have extensive training or any training and are therefore a hazard to themselves and others.

Why does a LETHAL weapon have to be the best choice? What about stun guns or rubber bullets, say. Why does it have to be something that kills? Now, obviously, I don't know much about guns or weapons, but I don't believe that a lethal handgun is something that the general public NEEDS in order to survive in these times.

Hi, by the way... I was surprised to see this thread still going.

[jody]

92. I believe you and I both agree that any one who wants to

keep and bear arms has an obligation to learn how to use them correctly. Given that prerequisite, I believe law abiding citizens have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms for self defense. The Democratic Party agrees with me and states our support for the Second Amendment in our party platform.

That is even more important when one recognizes that SCOTUS has said governments are not obligated to protect an individual unless that person is in custody. Self defense is a personal decision as well as the choice of arms.

[EnfantTerrible]

96. I'm not sure that an obligation is enough

Maybe there should be hours of training requirements for licencing like pilots. I think we could both agree that the obligation is not always met, hence, the problems that make these discussions necessary.

[jody]

98. If you wish to make "obligation" mandatory with a law, e.g. requiring

those who wish to carry a concealed firearm to be trained, then you are in good company because many of the 35 states that have "shall issue" laws do require a formal training course.

"Shall issue" means that the local government must issue a license to carry a concealed weapon, e.g. handgun, if a law abiding citizen applies for a license.

[EnfantTerrible]

103. It's a start

But it doesn't really address the issue of unregistered guns.

I meant to ask you yesterday: Do you support the idea of house to house searches for illegal firearms?

[jody]

105. I don't support searches without a warrant issued by a judge for cause.

Unregistered guns is not the problem. The problem is criminals possessing guns in violation of existing laws. They are rarely prosecuted by the federal government for such violations and if prosecuted are rarely given the maximum sentence.

What good are laws if they are not enforced?

[EnfantTerrible]

112. SELF DELETE

[EnfantTerrible]

113. How can unregistered guns not be the problem?

It doesn't seem to jibe with your statement about criminals possessing guns in violation of existing laws... my guess is most crimes committed with guns are done so with guns that are unregistered... I could be wrong about that, but I'd be surprised to find out so.

[EnfantTerrible]

114. Perhaps I'm wrong in assuming

that most criminals are in possession of unregistered guns. It is an assumption... so I could easily stand corrected. This is the problem I have with the efficacy of registration as a deterrant to gun crime... you can have regulations out the ass, but a criminal will get a gun some way and, by the very nature of being someone who doesn't abide by laws, isn't going to be stopped by registration regulations. If they are desparate or deranged enough to commit a crime with a gun, then to my thinking, registration violations become a very secondary issue next to the crime committed with said gun. Besides which it's already too late once the crime is committed because gun control has failed us by then. Registration isn't going to give a criminal pause... not having access to any guns (ie a gun free society, excepting law enforcement professionals) will take away the option completely. It's idealistic, to be sure, to hope for such a thing as a gun free society and how it would be implemented barring house to house search and siezure (which we both seem not to support without cause and warrants etc.) is something to which I have no answer... but regulation is just a bandaid to a much larger problem and an ineffective one at that. Evolution and progress as a society is the only way I can see the problem resolved.

[jody]

117. Your posts #113 and #114 are confusing. You asked in #113

"How can unregistered guns not be the problem?" and then stated in #114 ". Perhaps I'm wrong in assuming that most criminals are in possession of unregistered guns."

As a start, it is the criminal that commits a crime not a gun, knife, club, or other instrument. I believe most criminals that commit crimes with guns use guns that have been obtained illegally.

Most who support RKBA believe that criminals commit crime not guns and that registration often is a first step to confiscation leaving law abiding citizens without adequate arms to defend self and property. Remember that SCOTUS has ruled that government is not obligated to protect an individual unless that person is in custody.

That leaves self defense up to each individual. If someone chooses not to use firearms for self defense, that's their choice but they should not deny me the right to keep and bear arms to defend myself. As a corollary, if someone decides not to exercise their right to vote they should not deny me the right to exercise my right to vote.

The right to self defense was declared by Pennsylvania in 1776 as a natural, inherent, inalienable right. Today as in 1776, guns are the most effective, efficient arms for self defense. Those who disagree with that statement can identify other arms that are more effective and efficient than guns.

[EnfantTerrible]

118. The statements that confused you were in answer to your post (#105)

where you stated that unregistered guns are not the problem. As far as criminals committing crimes and not guns, I think that that is obvious.... if guns were not available then criminals would not be able to commit their crimes WITH GUNS. No where do I say that the gun is committing the crime.

How does registration lead to confiscation? If a gun is unregistered then it's existance only becomes known after a crime has been committed with it, at which point gun regulation has already failed us.

I understand the rights that you keep bringing up, I understand that they have been on the books since 1776. This does not change the fact that I don't believe an evolved society needs such weapons in the hands of public. This is my opinion. I think that your analogy about voting rights is a bit of a stretch in this instance as is your interpretation that the right to self defense or even to bear arms is specifically about guns. We do not live in the 18th century anymore, though the kind of reasoning you are employing would suggest that you may wish we still were.

[jody]

119. I guess we are at a point of agreeing to disagree. RKBA is an important

right to the majority of Americans, that's why the Democratic Party Platform supports the Second Amendment.

Goodbye :hi:

[noiretextatique]

65. there is nothing "natural" or "inherent" about guns eom

[jody]

68. The majority of our states agree with Pennsylvania that the

right of self defense is an inherent, natural, and inalienable right. The way to exercise that right is by keeping and bearing arms and the most effective, efficient arm for exercising that right is a firearm, particularly a handgun.

That's why the Democratic Party Platform supports Second Amendment rights. Do you support our platform?

[noiretextatique]

69. self-defense is natural

guns aren't...so skip the NRA rhetoric, please? i actually support the notion of "WELL-REGULATED" gun ownership, per the wording in the second amendment regarding militias.

[jody]

70. I object to your comment that my statements are "NRA rhetoric".

Many who support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms are usually or often or some other qualifier aggressively opposed to the Republican dominated NRA. Comments that equate Democrats who support RKBA with Republican/NRA are offensive to me.

I cited specific facts from state constitutions and the Democratic Party Platform in this thread.

Apparently you agree that "self-defense is natural", so we must disagree on the tools to use when exercising that right. The Democratic Party Platform supports the Second Amendment with its rich history of keeping and bearing firearms for self defense. Apparently you don't support that part of our platform.

[noiretextatique]

83. self-righteous? just a tad

NRA rhetoric...yeah, i said it and it fits to a tee.

[jody]

100. You knowledge of the RKBA issue can be expanded if you participate

in DU's "Gun Rights & Gun Control" forum.

[noiretextatique]

110. no thanks

i'm not fond of dungeons, but i support responsible gun ownership.

[sierrajim]

90. Please keep the anti-gun rhetoric down below a roar.

And you should really look up what the words "WELL-REGULATED" meant during years past but since it looks like you have no idea I'll show you. And yes a whole lot of us here do own guns.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Well Regulated

Of all the words in the Second Amendment, "well regulated" probably causes the most confusion. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference, here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Some in their enthusiasm to belong to a well regulated militia have attempted to explain well regulated by using the definition "adjust so as to ensure accuracy." A regulated rifle is one that is sighted-in. However well regulated modifies militia, not arms. That definition is clearly inappropriate.

This leaves us with "to adjust to some standard..." or "to put in good order." Let's let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- See The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
"To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:


b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
The text itself also suggests the fourth definition ("to put in good order"). Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or just the right amount of laws ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia?

[noiretextatique]

94. gun control is regulation

it makes perfect sense to have those laws where they are needed.
guns are not natual or inherent is NOT anti-gun rhetoric. i was simply responding the person who used that over-the-top pro-gun rhetoric.

[jody]

99. Sorry but "gun control" to many gun-grabbers means the ban of all guns.

Among those who have stated they would ban all guns is Senator Feinstein.

[noiretextatique]

109. yawn

:boring: yet more gun hysteria :boring:

[sierrajim]

111. It would appear that you still have not read

what the phrase "Well Regulated" meant during the 18th century so please before you say anything more for gun-control please read it.

[marions ghost]

91. the Dem party

can support gun rights all they want, in order not to be painted into a corner politically, as it's such a supercharged issue. But no, I don't have to support the platform on every point to support the Democrats.

Guns are not a reasonable or desirable solution for self-defense for the average person. Many people do not WANT to "keep and bear arms" and resent living in a society that demands that they do so. If you feel safer keeping guns around, then obviously you're not going to lose that right in this country. But no need to advocate it for the rest of us in a civilized society (do we live in a civilized society...or don't we)? Citizens having freedom FROM guns is part of a civilized society. Where everyone MUST carry a gun, as in some places in the world--these are very scary places to live.

[SOS]

106. Incorrect

In NYC anyone can purchase a rifle and keep it in their home.
The Gun Control Act of 1968, an update of the 1911 Sullivan law, placed limits on handguns.
Handguns are legal for five categories of citizen - here's the NYPD link for obtaining a handgun - http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/nypd/html/dclm/ldinfo.html

If you wish to protect your home in NYC, you can buy a rifle. If, however, you are caught with an unlicensed handgun, it's a year in jail.

New York has the lowest crime rate of any major American city.

[Cleita]

73. How about one law instead of many laws that should be

enforced but aren't? I have been hearing that argument from gun afficionados ever since the little kids got shot and killed in a day school in Los Angeles by a nutjob with ties to the Aryan Nation in Idaho. What if people in their community can insist on the gun laws they want? I would bet in most neighborhoods in NYC, the people would support licensing gun owners, just like getting a license to drive your car.

[jody]

80. I believe NYC already has much of what you propose. n/t

[Warpy]

16. I've lived in godawful slums all my adult life

because I generally got better value for my rental or mortgage dollars.

Even though my present area is called The War Zone, I rarely hear gunfire here. When I do, the proper procedure is to turn off the lights and sit on the floor. In really bad areas with a LOT of gunfire, the procedure is to turn off the lights and go lay in the bathtub. I know of some areas where parents have their kids sleep on pallets in the bathtub. 'Scuse me, but this is a lousy way to live just so suburbanites can keep a Glock in the bedside table and feel safer without having to be licensed and pass safety tests.

The NRA can kiss my pasty white ass, too. I want to see firearms licensed the way cars are, with proficiency and safety testing at license renewal time. No license, no ammo. I don't want to see guns banned (this is bear and cougar country), but I do want to see more responsible ownership and use.

Most of all, I want to see thugs and losers deprived of easy access to ammo.

[Cleita]

75. You don't need to protect yourself from bears and cougars

in the inner cities. Gun regulation should be very strict in high crime areas. Of course more police protection with guys who have been trained to use guns would help too. But none of our elected leaders and mayors seem to see this because it would mess up their budgets.

[SteppingRazor]

17. Yikes! Much sympathy, from a proud gun owner.

First, given that you're still posting, I'm assuming you and your family are safe and sound. Glad to see that.

And as for these people who popped off rounds near you, it's @$$holes like that who make the rest of us look bad. However, I would be willing to bet that they're not gunowners using their own registered firearms.

[EnfantTerrible]

21. You are probably right about it being unregistered

but without trying to be rude... Who Cares About Registrations?????? I've never understood this argument that a gun is somehow less lethal because someone holds a piece of paper saying that they can legally own one! It quite misses the point about the problems of fostering a gun toting society. IMO

We are safe and sound... thank you for your conscern. Didn't mean to bite your head off if that is how this reads.

[SteppingRazor]

25. Point taken.

But all I'm saying is that this is an example of lack of enforcement of the laws already on the books (sweet Jesus, I sound like an NRA member! ;) )
In any case, I think gun laws should be left up to the states. What's good for a rural area in the South is not necessarily (in fact, definitely not) what's good for, say, Manhattan.

[EnfantTerrible]

28. It may be impossible to enforce the laws

because the problem is already epidemic. Guns are too easily acquired legally or otherwise.

A sound assertion about rural vs urban areas, but not one I'm inclined to agree with simply because I don't believe guns are good or necessary...

[getmeouttahere]

34. Point taken, SteppingRazor....

there was a good article in "The Nation" about this sort of thing...Democrats who are gun owners want to vote for the Dems in their state (in this case New Mexico) but sometimes have a hard time because of the anti-gun stance. I can see some merit to making it a state by state thing...especially a state like NM with large open spaces. Some people feel the need to own guns in these wide-open spaces, where if they are in trouble presumably they could "take care of it themselves"

[burrowowl]

79. I lived in Levallois

in France (you walk across the Pris ring road and you are in Levallois) for 20 years, population 150,000, 1 murder in that time. Lived in Roswell NM for seven, attended funerals of co-workers murder, many by gun wounds, some by knives. Me, my dog and cat would put as many walls between us and some nut that would fire off a large caliber gun, every New Years, X-mas, 4th of July, etc.
I like plinking, safely, but haven't done it in decades, ABQ has gotten to big and plinking lands have over-big houses on them now.
Remember a nurse in France who was late from work one time. We walked our dogs together around 1:00 am. She was askance: they had to call in a military doctor, 2 people had been wounded with a high calibre bullet (I thought gee see should intern at UNM Hospital).
There are gun clubs and hunters in France, gun licensing is strict as well as supply of said. The traffic cops don't have guns.
As to the U$ of A, I think the case is hopeless. In NM I sometimes think more hunters are shot by hunters, than hunters shoot legal game. Many people permitted to have guns don't even know the rudiments, especially regarding semi-automatics. Our family kept only a bolt-action and when the gun was in the house, the bolt and the gun were stored separatly.
In America I think it is both a question of guns and culture.

[sleipnir]

29. No, but I have friends that do, and Inwood has only the illusion of safety

IMO, of course.

A good many people moved up there for the space and cheap rent, but the heart of the matter really is, Inwood is not as safe as many believe it to be. I'm not saying that it's anywhere near Mott Haven or East New York standards, but I thought about moving there and ended up not, because it's too isolated and the crime stats were higher than the Manhattan average last I checked. Parts of Inwood are very nice, don't get me wrong.

A friend of mine, Sarah Fox was murdered in the park up there not but over a year ago.

[BurtWorm]

36. She was a friend of yours?

I'm sorry for you and all of her friends. That case is still unsolved, isn't it?

[sleipnir]

40. They have a "Person of Interest"

I hate that term, but it seems to fit nowadays. He's really more of a suspect at this point, but he got picked up for beating a dog two months ago in the park and attacking the owner. I'm not privy to all the details of the case or how it is proceeding, last I heard from another friend, the "POI" was whom the DA is going to hopefully charge soon.

It's just horrible that it has taken this long, and kind of concerns me that budget cuts, especially in detective overtime, might be hindering investigations all over the City.

[BurtWorm]

42. Sounds like a Patricia Highsmith novel.

And it's enough to make anyone cynical about justice in the city.

[EnfantTerrible]

46. Sarah was a friend to us as well...

It rocked this community. But I have lived here for three years now and never felt unsafe. She is missed and the tragedy still resonates throughout the neighborhood.

[Bouncy Ball]

30. Are you really not allowed to own guns in NYC?

I've read that in this thread twice, but don't know if that's true or not.

Surely it's not.

[sandnsea]

54. Licensed & Registered

It's like conceal & carry laws, except they apply to all handguns.

It's funny to me, gun people advocate conceal & carry laws and call them huge wins. But they generally require the exact same standards gun regulation people advocate. I don't understand why people don't see that.

[solinvictus]

82. It's hard to get a permit in NYC.

From what I've heard, you have to have inside connections to get a carry permit approved.

[Roland99]

35. Glad you're ok...but...imagine life in Baghdad...I think you just did.

[EnfantTerrible]

39. It's what immediately sprang to mind

once things calmed down. I feel for all who live with it and thank my lucky stars that I'm not there.

[RedSock]

43. i live just down the road from you

Saw the topic title ... wondered where the poster was from ...

INWOOD??

...

I'm at Broadway and 190th Street. :hi:

[EnfantTerrible]

45. Hey neighbor

I'm at 218th and B'way. Have you heard anything about this?

[RedSock]

52. not a peep

i was out at the time, but my wife didn't hear anything.

also haven't had NY1 on at all.

???

[Roland99]

44. Ever read Riverbend's blog?

It's what I was thinking of when I read this thread.

[applegrove]

50. Must be very traumatizing for the kids. My advice come up with a

plan for the kids over the next few days - like a sleepover with parents and eat hamburgers in from of the TV and give them candy and hang together really tight for the next few days. Talk about how 'yes' it was scary - but the police got their man. And boy did you want to cry or go to the bathroom really fast when you heard those shots and felt scared. And your stomach fell so fast it hurt a great deal and that was fear.

Do you circle thing that our ancestors did for 200,000 years. Tell the story and get them to tell the story over and over again. Get them to draw pictures if they are that age. Or get them to play-act the event and the outcome where they are in control and made the right decisions. And make sure you all give it a great ending. And ending where the kids are in control and very smart for what they each did.

Every night as they go to bed they will be placing memories of this day. So help them along. Bond 'big time'. Talk and draw. And tell them to absolutely talk about their feelings from hereon in.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EnfantTerrible]

63. Maybe you should read a better newspaper...

Just a thought.

[Mugweed]

64. So none of those police blotter reports are true?

Or are you telling me that I should only focus on the "good news"..like the right wing tells us to do about Iraq?

Edit: nice ad-hominem attack, Hannity fan?

[EnfantTerrible]

71. Was the "ad-hominem" edit

in reference to The Daily News? or do you feel attacked?

I'm not suggesting that you only focus on the "good news"... just a good newspaper. Yes, there is a substantial amount of crime in NYC. Not surprising in such a densely populated area. I'm sure the police blotter is horrific taken out of context... and it's not always a choice to live where one lives. (I read your later post about your experiences with unemployment in order to get away... that is not a choice I can afford make).

Sorry if I came across as a Hannity fan. The man is a pig. I would've been offended... if your comment hadn't made me laugh.

cheers

[Renew Deal]

102. The Daily News endorsed Bush.

[EnfantTerrible]

104. Need we say more? n/t

[name not needed]

67. NYC's not as bad as you make it out to be

Besides, theres much worse places you can be.

[Withywindle]

84. Yes, like Chicago!

:D We're beating you in the death stats big time, have for years.


Gunshots on my block are sadly not uncommon. And my neighborhood isn't actually "bad." But we all make risk assessments every day, and for me to able to live my life in such a vital, lively, fascinating place with so much culture is VERY worth it to me over somewhere safer and more boring. Also, my job only exists in big cities.

I have lost friends to violence, sadly. It doesn't make us want to move. It makes us want to improve things where we are.

[aaronnyc]

74. LOL... The Daily News could make Sweden sound more violent than Iraq

Don't trust the Daily News for an accurate interpretation of crime in New York. New York City used to be one of the most violent cities in America, but in the past decade that has changed drastically. For the past few years, New York has had less murders per capita than any major city in the U.S.

It seems be taking New York awhile to drop the reputation for violence, which it developed during the '70's and '80's. Today, it is really quite safe though.

[i have issues]

77. I grew up in Inwood

On Sickles st. Acouple blocks south of Dyckman, a little bit of a rough nieghborhood when I was there in the late seventies, early eighties. I really loved that neighborhood though... Made a lot of good friends. Hope you stay safe.

[Stephanie]

89. What a rude and INACCURATE comment. Crime rates are higher in the SOUTH.

FYI:

=======================

http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime1.aspx


Worst Large Cities for Crime (>500,000 pop.)
Although Arizona has two of the most crime-ridden cities in the nation, their violent crime rates are relatively low.

1. Tucson, AZ
Tucson has one of the highest property crime rates in the country, especially larceny. On the bright side, Tucson has a low murder rate.

2. Memphis, TN-AR-MS *
Residents of Memphis contend with the nation's second-highest violent crime rate. In addition, the rate of robbery and burglary are among the nation's highest.

3. Miami, FL
Miami's violent crime rate is the highest in the nation, with especially high incidences of robbery and assault. Thankfully, the murder rate is relatively low.

4. Phoenix-Mesa, AZ
Phoenix-Mesa has one of the highest rates of auto theft in the nation.

5. Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR
The Little Rock area has a high rate of property crime, especially larceny.

Worst Medium Cities for Crime (200,000-500,000 pop.)
On the other hand, the South seems to be particularly challenged with crime:

1. Myrtle Beach, SC
Myrtle Beach has the highest total rate of crime in the nation, due to a high rate of violent crime and the nation's highest rate of property crime. In particular, the rates of assault, burglary, and larceny are particularly high.

2. Montgomery, AL
The murder rate is significantly high in Montgomery, as are the rates of robbery, burglary, and larceny.

3. Laredo, TX
While the larceny rate is high in Laredo, residents can take comfort in the relatively low rates of murder and forcible rape.

4. Waco, TX
Like Laredo, violent crime is less of a concern in Waco than property crime. In particular, burglary and larceny are a problem.

5. Wilmington, NC
Wilmington has the second-highest rate of burglary in the country. On the other hand, the rates of forcible rape and assault are low.

Worst Small Cities for Crime (<200,000 pop.)

1. Topeka, KS
Topeka has the highest rate of property crime among cities with fewer than 200,000 population. The rates of larceny and robbery are especially high.

2. Pine Bluff, AR
Pine Bluff has a high rate of murder and the ninth-highest rate of robbery in the nation.

3. Monroe, LA *
Monroe suffers from significant property and violent crime, especially assault and larceny.

4. Alexandria, LA
Alexandria has the fourth-highest violent crime rate in the nation. Murder and assault are a problem in particular, but the rate of forcible rape is low.

5. Florence, SC
Assault and larceny rates are high in Florence, but the murder rate is low.

==========================

Of the 100 largest cities, NEW YORK ranks 86th on the list, i.e. it's one of the top 15 SAFEST big cities to live in.

http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime3.aspx

[Renew Deal]

101. That's a steaming pile.

If you think you understand NYC based on the Daily News, you have no idea what's going on? BTW, the Daily News also reports that NYC is the safest big city in the world. It has some of the finest ethnic, artistic, theater, museum, culinary and music communities in the world. You should visit instead of CHOOSING to be naive.

And BTW, how can you live in Florida and have the audacity to make such a comment about NY?

[realcountrymusic]

107. WTF?

New York City has a lower crime rate than most small towns in the midwest. It is a diverse, tolerant, thrilling, very human place (expensive as hell, but quality costs).

I've lived all over this country, rural, urban, and suburban, west coast, east coast, midwest, and deep south. I have lived in NYC for 7 years now and would never live anywhere else if it was my choice.

Yeah, there's crime. But in general I feel safe almost anywhere, almost any time.

Period. A "rat hole?" Sheesh.

[Cleita]

76. I was reading about Denmark.

They describe themselves as a social welfare state. They are proud of their low crime rate and credit it to the social programs that help citizens who are in need for health care, housing, counseling and other services provided by the state.

[EnfantTerrible]

88. I think that they are on to something!

The crime problem is absolutely linked to all of the social issues you listed and more...
crime is a symptom of these. IMO

[Pithlet]

108. Yikes!

That must have been terrifying. Hopefully things are under control, now. Stay safe.

[ConfuZed]

115. Geez get a grip lady you have heard anything until you've moved to...

Southern California there is some manic that likes to let off a ton of shots in my area thank goodness none has been hit yet but this is southern california so I'm used to it.

[EnfantTerrible]

116. My grip is fine, thanks...

and I'm no lady.