The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
How Stop-and-Frisk Makes Gun Control More Effective
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Slate:

Jeff Sessions Is Scapegoating the ACLU for Chicago’s Murder Rate Spike
By JOHN RAPPAPORT

MAY 11, 20184:45 PM

In 2016, the number of homicides in Chicago jumped by 58 percent year over year. Why? Most social scientists have struggled to reach any firm conclusions. But in a speech on Tuesday in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions claimed he’s found the smoking gun in a study by former federal judge Paul Cassell and economist Richard Fowles: It’s called the “ACLU effect.” Liberal police reform, this theory insinuates, is deadly business. Is Sessions right? Should we really be scared of the ACLU? No. The “ACLU effect” is a mirage.

Cassell and Fowles attribute the homicide spike to a drop in stop-and-frisk activity by the Chicago Police Department, which they tie, in turn, to a deal between Chicago and the ACLU requiring officers to document street stops more thoroughly. The agreement aimed to create a reservoir of evidence for determining whether stops are unjustified or discriminatory. The theory behind “the ACLU effect,” then, is that requiring officers to collect all this data slowed them down nearly to a halt. “If you want crime to go up,” Sessions scoffed, “let the ACLU run the police department.”

CPD’s street-stop activity did plummet by about 75 percent in late 2015—from around 40,000 stops per month to 10,000—as homicides and other gun crimes broke sharply upward. But that doesn’t mean the decline in street stops caused the homicide spike. For one thing, other crimes in Chicago didn’t jump nearly as much when stops slowed down. So Cassell and Fowles need some theory for why street stops, when conducted en masse, were depressing gun violence but not other crimes—such that, when stop and frisk dropped, gun crimes alone shot up. They don’t have one. In fact, other research suggests that when proactive policing slows down, we might, if anything, expect a greater increase in property crime than violent crime.

I have a theory: Stop and Frisk is an effective way to enforce Chicago’s stringent gun control laws. Reducing Stop and Frisk by 75% made gun control into something of a dead letter on the streets of Chicago, causing a near immediate spike in murders committed with guns.

It’s not exactly a coincidence that the mayor who most strongly promoted gun control nationally was also the mayor who most ferociously had his giant police force carry out Stop and Frisk: New York’s Michael Bloomberg.

Stop and Frisk is, to a large extent, about gun control: the cops pull over somebody they deem suspicious looking, pat him down, find him carrying a gun illegally, and send him to prison. Pretty quickly, suspicious-looking individuals carry fewer guns.

Conversely, when The Establishment (e.g., the ACLU, the Obama Administration, the national media) come down on a local police force, as happened to the Chicago Police Department in late November 2015 after it had to release the video of an apparently inexcusable shooting, the opposite of what happened in New York City happens. Dodgy characters start carrying guns on the street more and they use them more.

That can explain what’s baffling Slate: when the Chicago Police Department stopped so aggressively enforcing gun control in late 2015, why did murders shoot up much faster in early 2016 than less severe crimes? Because, just like gun control advocates say, guns are more lethal. So the safer it was for a criminal to pack heat, the more people died.

But that doesn’t mean lesser crimes would shoot up the same. In fact there might be, if anything, a negative correlation between, say, barroom brawling, theft, and the like versus guns on the street. Britain, for example, has few murders but an awful lot of mid-level crime, in part because it’s safer to be a criminal predator in Britain because you aren’t that likely to get shot.

But who when writing a long article for Slate can imagine something so complicated and ironic and problematic as the idea that gun control and stop and-frisk-are related. They’re both not very Constitutional and not very effective without each other, but pretty effective together.

Instead, everybody is supposed to know that gun control is Good and stop-and-frisk is Bad and that’s all you need to know.

 
Hide 96 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Stop and Frisk requires a 4th Amendment Terry standard: A police officer has to have a reasonable belief that a suspect is “armed and dangerous.” How this is carried out on the street has always been a mystery to me.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    @petit bourgeois


    Stop and Frisk requires a 4th Amendment Terry standard: A police officer has to have a reasonable belief that a suspect is “armed and dangerous.” How this is carried out on the street has always been a mystery to me.
     
    Leftists don't care about the Constitution. That's what stop-and-frisk is for; leftist jurisdictions that don't care about the Constitution.
    , @Olorin
    @petit bourgeois

    For starters, a lot of cops already know the people on their beat, or have plenty of local intelligence or even history to go on. More over time. They don't just get dropped in there by helicopters.

    When you know that Daquan'Tae just got out of slam and is gunnin' for Lil ShayVon who put him up for messin' wid his baby mama Airwrecka's crack op, and you see Daquan'Tae headin' for they crib with a lump in the front of his pants that's too high to be an anaconda--well, that pretty well fits a call for a Terry stop, dunnit?

    By the way, that "history to go on" is part of what makes blacks so mad. IME it's a mystery to them how whites can piece together present or future motivation from past behavior. People who scream "dindu nuffin" while being arrested for something they just did, or are in the middle of doing, are going to have a very hard time comprehending that their behavioral patterns are in fact patterns. There's always a lawyer willing to take their side to make a case and get them a payout. Blacks are eminently farmable by certain interests.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    , @stillCARealist
    @petit bourgeois

    I though it was Stop, Question, and Frisk. The stop occurs because they have already committed a low-level crime, like jumping a turnstile. Question comes next, and then the frisking. I remember reading about this in Giuliani's NYC time when the cops would stop each jumper, or spray painter, or truant, and then find outstanding warrants, weapons, etc. To me that sounds like excellent policing, not unconstitutional.


    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
     
    The SC has interpreted that to mean law enforcement has legitimate needs to do warrantless searches in certain circumstances... like when a crime has just been committed. Of course it can be outrageous, but that's a price we pay to live in a modern city.

    Replies: @anon

    , @TheJester
    @petit bourgeois

    You can tell a lot about a person by race/ethnicity, dress, and demeanor.

    If a policeman is on the beat in a high crime area, encounters a black male dressed and behaving like a "gangbanger", then there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is "armed and dangerous". Yes, I know. Every time there is an altercation between police and a "gangbanger", the police planted the weapon on the suspect ... at least as the MSM tells the story. This can be dismissed outright unless there is credible evidence to the contrary.

    Two cameos:

    #1: I once bunked with a friend in a Hispanic community in the Los Angeles area. I used to go jogging in the mornings. Then, I noticed the unfriendly and hostile stares I got from Hispanic males who gathered on some of the front porches in the morning. They were smoking marijuana. I stopped jogging. If I had continued jogging, I anticipated an eventual physical confrontation for penetrating their territory ... being in their space. It made good sense to avoid a confrontation.

    That reminded me of why I was bunking with a friend. We could not afford a house in the area closer to work (my commute was then 240 miles a day). A realtor had shown us housing in the area. I asked if there were neighborhoods that were more affordable. Her reply, "Yes, there are ... but you can't live there." I guess I can't jog there either.

    #2. We were once at a teacher's meeting on the other side of the country ... Arlington, VA. A few of us got into a conversation with a black female teacher ... black as night. We talked about discrimination. She related that if she saw a bunch of black males sauntering down the sidewalk, she would cross to the other side to avoid the inevitable ... being hassled and harassed. She said that at times, she feared worse.

    Question: If I and the black teacher at different ends of the racial/ethnicity spectrum can make the same types of rational decisions about who is dangerous and who is not based on race/ethnicity, dress, and demeanor, why can't the police? Indeed, I think their judgment might be keener.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

  2. Stop and Frisk is, to a large extent, about gun control: the cops pull over somebody they deem suspicious looking, pat him down, find him carrying a gun illegally, and send him to prison. Pretty quickly, suspicious-looking individuals carry fewer guns.

    It would be very effective if they sent him to weekend community service or probation or whatever, just so long as they confiscated the gun; the idea being to create a virtuous cycle where people carrying illegally are unable to afford to replace the guns as quickly as they’re seized.

    All of this is blatantly unConstitutional, btw, but I’m okay with it as long as it doesn’t obtain above the county level, because it gives leftists a way to put their money where their mouth is without involving real Americans.

    I love the leftist obtuseness about this. They reject their best chance at reducing gun violence because reducing gun violence isn’t really their goal. It’s just a bloody shirt they like to wave.

    So Cassell and Fowles need some theory for why street stops, when conducted en masse, were depressing gun violence but not other crimes—such that, when stop and frisk dropped, gun crimes alone shot up. They don’t have one.

    No, they don’t need some theory.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    @Svigor

    I have the same constitutional scruples that you appear to have. But I have begun to wonder whether a constitution with strong protection of individual liberties can ever apply to two populations as disparate as northwestern Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans.

  3. Ron Unz, looks like we’re back to “my comment didn’t show up as pending moderation after I made it” status, in case you didn’t know already.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  4. @petit bourgeois
    Stop and Frisk requires a 4th Amendment Terry standard: A police officer has to have a reasonable belief that a suspect is "armed and dangerous." How this is carried out on the street has always been a mystery to me.

    Replies: @Svigor, @Olorin, @stillCARealist, @TheJester

    Stop and Frisk requires a 4th Amendment Terry standard: A police officer has to have a reasonable belief that a suspect is “armed and dangerous.” How this is carried out on the street has always been a mystery to me.

    Leftists don’t care about the Constitution. That’s what stop-and-frisk is for; leftist jurisdictions that don’t care about the Constitution.

  5. But being “suspicious looking” does not fall within the “armed and dangerous” standard nor is it “probable cause.” Of course it is blatantly unconstitutional. Are you saying the 4th Amendment should apply to whites and not blacks?

    Remember the dissenting opinion in Terry, which remains true to this day in the modern police state:

    “To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path.”

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @27 year old
    @petit bourgeois


    Are you saying the 4th Amendment should apply to whites and not blacks?
     
    Yes

    Next

    Replies: @petit bourgeois

    , @Svigor
    @petit bourgeois

    I'm saying that I like decentralization. I'd rather have leftists assaulting their own 2nd Amendment rights in their own jurisdictions (muni and county, not state/federal) than assaulting ours throughout the country or a given state.

    And if we can't offer this choice to leftists, it becomes harder to expose them for the frauds they are.

    Replies: @MBlanc46

    , @J.Ross
    @petit bourgeois


    Are you saying that the Constitution only applies to certain people?
     
    That how its framers felt.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois

    , @Client 9
    @petit bourgeois

    If we did not live in a mutli-racial society we would not be having this conversation.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @MBlanc46
    @petit bourgeois

    Perhaps it is the case that the Bill of Rights should not apply to such disparate populations as northwest Europeans (who wrote the document and to whom it was intended to apply) and Sub-Saharan Africans.

  6. Looks like Mr. Magoo is trying to stay somewhat relevant to the world.

  7. In 2016, the number of homicides in Chicago jumped by 58 percent year over year. Why? Most social scientists have struggled to reach any firm conclusions.

    Well, that’s not quite true – the struggle is to keep themselves from pointing out the obvious, since they know it’ll mean the end of their cushy, tenured existences.

    • Agree: NickG
  8. @petit bourgeois
    Stop and Frisk requires a 4th Amendment Terry standard: A police officer has to have a reasonable belief that a suspect is "armed and dangerous." How this is carried out on the street has always been a mystery to me.

    Replies: @Svigor, @Olorin, @stillCARealist, @TheJester

    For starters, a lot of cops already know the people on their beat, or have plenty of local intelligence or even history to go on. More over time. They don’t just get dropped in there by helicopters.

    When you know that Daquan’Tae just got out of slam and is gunnin’ for Lil ShayVon who put him up for messin’ wid his baby mama Airwrecka’s crack op, and you see Daquan’Tae headin’ for they crib with a lump in the front of his pants that’s too high to be an anaconda–well, that pretty well fits a call for a Terry stop, dunnit?

    By the way, that “history to go on” is part of what makes blacks so mad. IME it’s a mystery to them how whites can piece together present or future motivation from past behavior. People who scream “dindu nuffin” while being arrested for something they just did, or are in the middle of doing, are going to have a very hard time comprehending that their behavioral patterns are in fact patterns. There’s always a lawyer willing to take their side to make a case and get them a payout. Blacks are eminently farmable by certain interests.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Olorin

    Agree. Also experienced police officers can spot various indications that someone is carrying a gun. Here's a few from a list on the internet:


    Sweater and Jacket Zipper Line
    Whenever you zip up your jacket or a sweater, note the relative straightness of that zipper line. If you note it bends and points towards your concealed carry handgun, that's a hint you're carrying. Most people won't notice but someone trained to pick up on these things will definitely be watching.

    Clothes Don't Match The Season
    Being a concealed carrier doesn't automatically make us fashion experts. In most cases, far from it. But it is good to maintain a rough idea of the type of clothing everyone else is wearing to ensure we don't stick out. Wearing heavy woolen sweaters and jackets in the dead of summer definitely makes a person stick out like a sore thumb.

    Security Check
    Gun violators in particular will typically touch and/or adjust the weapons concealed on their bodies numerous times during the day. This may be a gentle and difficult to observe bump with the elbow, wrist or hand. On rare occasions, it could be a distinct grasping of the weapon as they adjust it. Violators often make this gesture when getting out of a chair or a car or when walking up a flight of stairs or high curb.

    Walk Differently

    The way a person walks reveals a lot about him or her. There's a number of “give-aways” to a person wearing a concealed carry handgun in just the way they walk. Rigid upper body movements. One hip stays put while the other extends the gait. One arm doesn't swing like the other. Concealed carriers tend to reduce the length of their walk. This is a natural reaction to not wanting to extend out too far on the side where the holster is situated so that the gun may show or protrude. They also tend to reflexively brace their arm towards the gun to ensure it doesn't slip out or fall out.

    Running – The Biggest Give-Away
    When crossing a busy street or just getting out of the rain, a concealed carrier will always tend to brace the side his gun is situated on. So if you see someone running to catch the cross-walk sign and he's got an arm braced against his body tightly, that's a dead giveaway he's carrying something he doesn't want to drop.
     

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Alden

  9. OT brief but cute misconduct thread. This Korean professor used fake emails to review his own “peer-reviewed” studies.
    http://boards.4chan.org/sci/thread/9734534

  10. With the rise of familial DNA matches(which the government is really lagging behind in what is possible), there are a whole host of crimes that are going to be really hard to pull off repeatedly in the future. Serial rape being the most obvious.

    I don’t really have a dog in the gun control fight, but if I were on the pro-gun control side I would look into the effect of deterring criminals away from guns and if that might make it easier for them to get caught.

  11. Our rights are being violated wholesale.

    Disarming people is a violation of the Second Amendment, and they need to violate the Fourth Amendment’s “probable cause” standard to do so. Beyond that, gun control laws in places like California and New York are ex post facto laws that criminalize ownership of previously legal objects, and they violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings clause by banning lawfully owned magazines outright without compensation. New York also violates the First Amendment’s Assembly Clause and the Federal HIPAA law by requiring physicians to report people for automatic gun confiscation. There is no avenue of appeal if this happens, which is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

    The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy clause is routinely violated when white people are acquitted of state level crimes — real or imagined — against Negroes and the federal government comes in and charges them for “civil rights violations.”

    And of course the NSA is spying on everyone’s electronic communications. Who the hell do you think leaked the transcripts of Trump’s personal phone calls to foreign leaders if not the NSA???

    In the welfare state, the people have no rights they can claim against the government. The government invents “constitutional rights” like anal intercourse and abortion and “diversity” to keep the proletarians eating from the hand of the Almighty Uncle Sugar, while actual, enumerated rights are laughed at or rationalized away by sophists and shysters.

  12. J.Ross says: • Website

    American freedoms are not for everybody, they’re for anybody who understands and signs on to an at times arduous philosophy and lifeway. Our guiding legal genius for a generation has been Saul Alinsky and there will have to be a clawing-back.
    >but how do police know
    Same way you would if you were there, these people aren’t the Pink Panther. Safe cities are as easy as giving cops the benefit of the doubt.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    @J.Ross

    “American freedoms are not for everybody”. This is a conclusion to which people who actually believe in diversity may begin to come.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  13. Hasn’t Chicago been unusually violent since, well, forever?

  14. I’m surprised that anti-gun Electrical Engineer Bloomberg hasn’t used his Billions to create a fleet of concealed weapon detecting cars disguised as Google mapping vehicles.

    After all, the millimeter-wave imaging radiometer technology to spy on US citizens through their clothing has already been developed; all it needs is the approval of your anti-gun US Judiciary and then it’s off to the races.

    https://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-14694/Final_Papers/GM0004-F.pdf

    http://www.jpier.org/PIERB/pierb46/20.12101505.pdf

    • Replies: @Svigor
    @Joe Stalin

    I was going to mention something like this from the legal angle. As far as I know, the basic thrust of the law is that gov't can't go scanning inside people's homes/work, but people on the street are fair game.

    So, cops can X-ray vision/whatever on the street, and get probable cause that way.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    , @Anonymous
    @Joe Stalin

    What happens when the weapons sensors pick up on someone with a CCW or a plainclothes officer?

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  15. That can explain what’s baffling Slate: when the Chicago Police Department stopped so aggressively enforcing gun control in late 2015, why did murders shoot up much faster in early 2016 than less severe crimes? Because, just like gun control advocates say, guns are more lethal. So the safer it was for a criminal to pack heat, the more people died.

    One might also point out that a large chunk of homicides are committed by men acting as their own police.One guy insults another guy….he draws his gun…..Guy catches his girl with another guy….bang-bang…..Those kinds of incidents don’t necessarily keep pace with muggings and robberies…..

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @syonredux


    One might also point out that a large chunk of homicides are committed by men acting as their own police. One guy insults another guy….he draws his gun…..Guy catches his girl with another guy….bang-bang…..
     
    Doesn't get invited to a party ..... catches uninvited a*holes crashing his party .....

    Replies: @German_Reader2

  16. @petit bourgeois
    But being "suspicious looking" does not fall within the "armed and dangerous" standard nor is it "probable cause." Of course it is blatantly unconstitutional. Are you saying the 4th Amendment should apply to whites and not blacks?

    Remember the dissenting opinion in Terry, which remains true to this day in the modern police state:


    "To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path."
     

    Replies: @27 year old, @Svigor, @J.Ross, @Client 9, @MBlanc46

    Are you saying the 4th Amendment should apply to whites and not blacks?

    Yes

    Next

    • Agree: David
    • Replies: @petit bourgeois
    @27 year old

    Well at least you admit your definition of a "person" is not consistent with the Constitution.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  17. They’re both not very Constitutional and not very effective without each other, but pretty effective together.

    FIFY, but still grateful you went that far at least, Steve.

    (and thank you Joe Stalin and Petit B.)

  18. @petit bourgeois
    But being "suspicious looking" does not fall within the "armed and dangerous" standard nor is it "probable cause." Of course it is blatantly unconstitutional. Are you saying the 4th Amendment should apply to whites and not blacks?

    Remember the dissenting opinion in Terry, which remains true to this day in the modern police state:


    "To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path."
     

    Replies: @27 year old, @Svigor, @J.Ross, @Client 9, @MBlanc46

    I’m saying that I like decentralization. I’d rather have leftists assaulting their own 2nd Amendment rights in their own jurisdictions (muni and county, not state/federal) than assaulting ours throughout the country or a given state.

    And if we can’t offer this choice to leftists, it becomes harder to expose them for the frauds they are.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    @Svigor

    Disaggregation will soon be the principal political issue in the US. The understanding that our political values are too disparate to be able to live together in a single polity will become more widespread every month.

  19. @Joe Stalin
    I'm surprised that anti-gun Electrical Engineer Bloomberg hasn't used his Billions to create a fleet of concealed weapon detecting cars disguised as Google mapping vehicles.

    After all, the millimeter-wave imaging radiometer technology to spy on US citizens through their clothing has already been developed; all it needs is the approval of your anti-gun US Judiciary and then it's off to the races.

    https://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-14694/Final_Papers/GM0004-F.pdf

    http://www.jpier.org/PIERB/pierb46/20.12101505.pdf

    Replies: @Svigor, @Anonymous

    I was going to mention something like this from the legal angle. As far as I know, the basic thrust of the law is that gov’t can’t go scanning inside people’s homes/work, but people on the street are fair game.

    So, cops can X-ray vision/whatever on the street, and get probable cause that way.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Svigor

    Countermeasures to mm-wave imaging systems would include metallised fabrics, aluminum foil or something like carbon which would not allow the radiation to penetrate.

    Replies: @jim jones, @Svigor

  20. mobi says:

    OT: ‘Marijuana-franchise as Reparations for Slavery’ is catching:

    Gubernatorial candidate…Cynthia Nixon took heat Monday from black leaders over her comments that creating a legalized pot industry in New York could serve as a form of reparations in black communities.

    “We (must) prioritize them in terms of licenses. It’s a form of reparations.”

    “I’m for legalizing marijuana and I like Cynthia Nixon but putting pot shops in our communities is not reparations,” the Rev. Al Sharpton tweeted.

    …Manhattan Democratic Party Chairman Keith Wright, a former long-time state assemblyman from Harlem, said Nixon’s comment “is ill-informed, lacks understanding of the greatest crime in history, and should cease and desist.”

    …”I believe social equity should be a part of licenses to sell marijuana, if and when legalization does occur. However, it is insulting to my soul, that the free labor that my ancestors gave to this country would be equated with the selling of marijuana.”

    Black Lives Matter of Greater NY blasted Nixon’s comments as “offensive and ignorant.”

    “It does a disservice to our community for her to play into harmful stereotypes of African-Americans as drug users and dealers,” the group said in a statement.

    …The group called on Nixon to apologize.

    …’and we’ll accept your proposal as a token of your remorse’

    Presumably a proxy for ‘Genius T. Coates” position.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cynthia-nixon-pot-remarks-ignite-outrage-black-leaders-article-1.3976450

    • Replies: @mobi
    @mobi

    Steve, you've got them firing on each other!

    , @Buffalo Joe
    @mobi

    Ok, give them Tesla dealerships instead, as Tesla's success, such as it is, depends on government subsidies. Oh wait, there are no Tesla dealerships.

  21. @Olorin
    @petit bourgeois

    For starters, a lot of cops already know the people on their beat, or have plenty of local intelligence or even history to go on. More over time. They don't just get dropped in there by helicopters.

    When you know that Daquan'Tae just got out of slam and is gunnin' for Lil ShayVon who put him up for messin' wid his baby mama Airwrecka's crack op, and you see Daquan'Tae headin' for they crib with a lump in the front of his pants that's too high to be an anaconda--well, that pretty well fits a call for a Terry stop, dunnit?

    By the way, that "history to go on" is part of what makes blacks so mad. IME it's a mystery to them how whites can piece together present or future motivation from past behavior. People who scream "dindu nuffin" while being arrested for something they just did, or are in the middle of doing, are going to have a very hard time comprehending that their behavioral patterns are in fact patterns. There's always a lawyer willing to take their side to make a case and get them a payout. Blacks are eminently farmable by certain interests.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    Agree. Also experienced police officers can spot various indications that someone is carrying a gun. Here’s a few from a list on the internet:

    Sweater and Jacket Zipper Line
    Whenever you zip up your jacket or a sweater, note the relative straightness of that zipper line. If you note it bends and points towards your concealed carry handgun, that’s a hint you’re carrying. Most people won’t notice but someone trained to pick up on these things will definitely be watching.

    Clothes Don’t Match The Season
    Being a concealed carrier doesn’t automatically make us fashion experts. In most cases, far from it. But it is good to maintain a rough idea of the type of clothing everyone else is wearing to ensure we don’t stick out. Wearing heavy woolen sweaters and jackets in the dead of summer definitely makes a person stick out like a sore thumb.

    Security Check
    Gun violators in particular will typically touch and/or adjust the weapons concealed on their bodies numerous times during the day. This may be a gentle and difficult to observe bump with the elbow, wrist or hand. On rare occasions, it could be a distinct grasping of the weapon as they adjust it. Violators often make this gesture when getting out of a chair or a car or when walking up a flight of stairs or high curb.

    Walk Differently

    The way a person walks reveals a lot about him or her. There’s a number of “give-aways” to a person wearing a concealed carry handgun in just the way they walk. Rigid upper body movements. One hip stays put while the other extends the gait. One arm doesn’t swing like the other. Concealed carriers tend to reduce the length of their walk. This is a natural reaction to not wanting to extend out too far on the side where the holster is situated so that the gun may show or protrude. They also tend to reflexively brace their arm towards the gun to ensure it doesn’t slip out or fall out.

    Running – The Biggest Give-Away
    When crossing a busy street or just getting out of the rain, a concealed carrier will always tend to brace the side his gun is situated on. So if you see someone running to catch the cross-walk sign and he’s got an arm braced against his body tightly, that’s a dead giveaway he’s carrying something he doesn’t want to drop.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Harry Baldwin

    I understand that people can get their tailors to measure their cloths WITH their concealed weapons rig mounted. That way, they can mitigate the cop eye for clothing irregularities.

    Another way is to carry the weapon away from your body, thereby obviating the security check and running problem.

    A Missouri person I knew carried a pistol in a shipping envelope that could be torn open to access the weapon should the need arise. You could break up the outline using bubble packing material. The advertised products that can also do this (Zippable planners and such) suffer from the fact that cops also read the same materials.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

    , @Alden
    @Harry Baldwin

    Thanks for the information. It could be useful for store clerks and people who live in bad neighborhoods.

  22. @petit bourgeois
    Stop and Frisk requires a 4th Amendment Terry standard: A police officer has to have a reasonable belief that a suspect is "armed and dangerous." How this is carried out on the street has always been a mystery to me.

    Replies: @Svigor, @Olorin, @stillCARealist, @TheJester

    I though it was Stop, Question, and Frisk. The stop occurs because they have already committed a low-level crime, like jumping a turnstile. Question comes next, and then the frisking. I remember reading about this in Giuliani’s NYC time when the cops would stop each jumper, or spray painter, or truant, and then find outstanding warrants, weapons, etc. To me that sounds like excellent policing, not unconstitutional.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The SC has interpreted that to mean law enforcement has legitimate needs to do warrantless searches in certain circumstances… like when a crime has just been committed. Of course it can be outrageous, but that’s a price we pay to live in a modern city.

    • Replies: @anon
    @stillCARealist

    You used to be able to get on a commercial airplane without you or your luggage being warrantlessly searched. You didn’t need ID either just a ticket. Why isn’t the media pushing for searchless flying?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  23. @Harry Baldwin
    @Olorin

    Agree. Also experienced police officers can spot various indications that someone is carrying a gun. Here's a few from a list on the internet:


    Sweater and Jacket Zipper Line
    Whenever you zip up your jacket or a sweater, note the relative straightness of that zipper line. If you note it bends and points towards your concealed carry handgun, that's a hint you're carrying. Most people won't notice but someone trained to pick up on these things will definitely be watching.

    Clothes Don't Match The Season
    Being a concealed carrier doesn't automatically make us fashion experts. In most cases, far from it. But it is good to maintain a rough idea of the type of clothing everyone else is wearing to ensure we don't stick out. Wearing heavy woolen sweaters and jackets in the dead of summer definitely makes a person stick out like a sore thumb.

    Security Check
    Gun violators in particular will typically touch and/or adjust the weapons concealed on their bodies numerous times during the day. This may be a gentle and difficult to observe bump with the elbow, wrist or hand. On rare occasions, it could be a distinct grasping of the weapon as they adjust it. Violators often make this gesture when getting out of a chair or a car or when walking up a flight of stairs or high curb.

    Walk Differently

    The way a person walks reveals a lot about him or her. There's a number of “give-aways” to a person wearing a concealed carry handgun in just the way they walk. Rigid upper body movements. One hip stays put while the other extends the gait. One arm doesn't swing like the other. Concealed carriers tend to reduce the length of their walk. This is a natural reaction to not wanting to extend out too far on the side where the holster is situated so that the gun may show or protrude. They also tend to reflexively brace their arm towards the gun to ensure it doesn't slip out or fall out.

    Running – The Biggest Give-Away
    When crossing a busy street or just getting out of the rain, a concealed carrier will always tend to brace the side his gun is situated on. So if you see someone running to catch the cross-walk sign and he's got an arm braced against his body tightly, that's a dead giveaway he's carrying something he doesn't want to drop.
     

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Alden

    I understand that people can get their tailors to measure their cloths WITH their concealed weapons rig mounted. That way, they can mitigate the cop eye for clothing irregularities.

    Another way is to carry the weapon away from your body, thereby obviating the security check and running problem.

    A Missouri person I knew carried a pistol in a shipping envelope that could be torn open to access the weapon should the need arise. You could break up the outline using bubble packing material. The advertised products that can also do this (Zippable planners and such) suffer from the fact that cops also read the same materials.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    @Joe Stalin

    Everything you mentioned is the style of high agency law abiding CCW holders, not Shitvarious with a Hi Point stuffed in his waistband.

    Guess which is being discussed in the current context.

  24. @Svigor
    @Joe Stalin

    I was going to mention something like this from the legal angle. As far as I know, the basic thrust of the law is that gov't can't go scanning inside people's homes/work, but people on the street are fair game.

    So, cops can X-ray vision/whatever on the street, and get probable cause that way.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    Countermeasures to mm-wave imaging systems would include metallised fabrics, aluminum foil or something like carbon which would not allow the radiation to penetrate.

    • Replies: @jim jones
    @Joe Stalin

    So now you need to carry your tinfoil hat on your hip

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    , @Svigor
    @Joe Stalin


    Countermeasures to mm-wave imaging systems would include metallised fabrics, aluminum foil or something like carbon which would not allow the radiation to penetrate.
     
    If the law follows its current trajectory, my take is those countermeasures would be probable cause, too.
  25. Baltimore just registered their 100th homicide for the year. Cleveland’s murder rate is approaching third world numbers. Both cities have a policing agreement forced on them by Obama’s DOJ. Less policing, more murders seems there is some correlation here.

  26. Virtue-signaling means never having to be consistent.

    (Consistency would also seem to dictate that they acknowledge that the gun-control laws were only originally meant to be enforced against Blacks, and therefore the Civil Rights movement should have meant repealing the gun laws rather than enforcing them against everybody (when Loving v. Virginia was decided, it didn’t eliminate marriage), but that ain’t happening anytime super-soon, methinks.)

    (I’m reminded of Napoleon’s maxim “de l’audace, encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace”. Now instead of l’audace, what’s French for virtue-signaling…?)

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @The Only Catholic Unionist

    ...gun-control laws were only originally meant to be enforced against Blacks

    DR3 Republicans like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity will toss out this fact as if it were a damning indictment of gun controllers. Honestly, though, if one looks at our crime problem objectively, without a "blank slate" filter, keeping guns out of the hands of blacks looks like a very good idea. Most of my fellow 2d Amendment supporters oppose Stop, Question, & Frisk, but focused on the primary perpetrators of armed violence in cities, it makes sense.

    , @a reader
    @The Only Catholic Unionist


    I’m reminded of Napoleon’s maxim “de l’audace, encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace”
     

    If you allow me, it's from Danton.

    Replies: @The Only Catholic Unionist

  27. @The Only Catholic Unionist
    Virtue-signaling means never having to be consistent.

    (Consistency would also seem to dictate that they acknowledge that the gun-control laws were only originally meant to be enforced against Blacks, and therefore the Civil Rights movement should have meant repealing the gun laws rather than enforcing them against everybody (when Loving v. Virginia was decided, it didn't eliminate marriage), but that ain't happening anytime super-soon, methinks.)

    (I'm reminded of Napoleon's maxim "de l'audace, encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace". Now instead of l'audace, what's French for virtue-signaling...?)

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @a reader

    …gun-control laws were only originally meant to be enforced against Blacks

    DR3 Republicans like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity will toss out this fact as if it were a damning indictment of gun controllers. Honestly, though, if one looks at our crime problem objectively, without a “blank slate” filter, keeping guns out of the hands of blacks looks like a very good idea. Most of my fellow 2d Amendment supporters oppose Stop, Question, & Frisk, but focused on the primary perpetrators of armed violence in cities, it makes sense.

  28. For all those opposing gun rights, how has total disarmament worked out for Britain? Oh yeah, its illegal to defend yourself against attack (if you are White). In Germany, its open season on anyone White. Ditto Norway, Sweden particularly, France, etc.

    EVERYWHERE there is gun control Whites get it in the neck.

    Time to get real — Gun Control is about DISARMING WHITES so its an all day, every day Reginald Denny with Damien “Football” Williams bringing a brick down on Whitey’s head any time he wants. Gun control is not Nice White Ladies and “teens” demanding an end to Rap Feuds and drive bys. Nope, its icky White guys with the gall, the insolence, not to know their place and curl up in the fetal position when attacked by their betters.

    There will be NO closing of the border, ever. Ace of Spades has some story on how the GOPe Cuckservatives are offering a back door open borders bill in connivance with Nancy Pelosi and Chucky Schemer (who are for gun control, what do they know that you don’t) and that Trump will sign it in bipartisan “agreement.”

    What, cops will stop and frisk “youths” and “teens?” What planet are some of you living on — that is an unrealistic as repealing women’s right to vote. Or stopping Abortion. Or repealing Affirmative Action. It is already established legal precedent that Black men and women have the right to inflict violence on non-Blacks as they see fit. That is the law, effectively. It is all the more powerful for not being written down, the way there is no written law that says the media goes bonkers over any Republican President and stages a love in over any Democratic one. Particularly Black Presidents.

    [MORE]

    The purpose of cops is now very clear and well understood, this is the actual real law that governs our society:

    A. Run away very hard and fast whenever there is even a hint that a Black or Hispanic might be conducting violence. See Baltimore Riots, Reginald Denny, Ferguson, Parkland FL.
    B. Hassle Whitey for every little thing and collect the maximum amount of fines from Whitey. [Whitey is Joe Average White guy without money, power, fame and connections. NY AG Slapperman is not Whitey.]
    C. Never ever EVER arrest an illegal for anything. Because that’s the law.
    D. [In Britain already the police don’t come if you speak normal English. They only come for non-Whites. This not yet the norm here in America but it is coming.]

    With all this, why would any White person throw away the one chance they have to defend themselves from violence dealt out to them — by fellow Whites and non-Whites alike? The police won’t come. Its not their job. They don’t exist to protect YOU. They exist to shake you down as much as possible for money and look the other way at NAM crime. Which is not dropping any time soon.

    Bottom line, about a billion Third world people are moving here real soon. They all want your stuff and no one is going to stop them from taking it. Donald Trump, John McCain, and Lindsay Grahamnesty are not going to protect you, and neither is the FBI, CIA, NSA, ATF, IRS, or any other government agency. Unless you are 1983-era Chuck Norris you better have a gun, know how to use it, when someone from the Third World accustomed to violence as an every day task kicks down your door to kill you and take your stuff.

    Last add — most of the violence in the Ghetto is the shortcut to getting laid. When some infant, granny, or toddler is shot and killed by some gang-banger, rest assured that some homey is getting laid tonight. The violence is not senseless, its the quickest way for a dude to get laid. Killing anyone turns on the ladies, and they don’t deny it. Just Amanda Palmer about her love poem to Dhokar Tsarnaev. [Apparently being married to cult writer and fan-worshiped Neil Gaiman was not enough compared to some dude who actually killed people.]

    Now the incels know it as well as the homey down the street, violence and particularly killing turns on the ladies and the quickest way to get laid is to kill someone. Still want to depend on Robert Mueller, Charlie Beck, and the like to protect yourself? We live in the New Frontier, only the Cavalry shows up to help the Indians scalp the Whites. Time to act on reality.

  29. @mobi
    OT: 'Marijuana-franchise as Reparations for Slavery' is catching:

    Gubernatorial candidate...Cynthia Nixon took heat Monday from black leaders over her comments that creating a legalized pot industry in New York could serve as a form of reparations in black communities.

    "We (must) prioritize them in terms of licenses. It's a form of reparations."

    "I'm for legalizing marijuana and I like Cynthia Nixon but putting pot shops in our communities is not reparations," the Rev. Al Sharpton tweeted.

    ...Manhattan Democratic Party Chairman Keith Wright, a former long-time state assemblyman from Harlem, said Nixon's comment "is ill-informed, lacks understanding of the greatest crime in history, and should cease and desist."

    ..."I believe social equity should be a part of licenses to sell marijuana, if and when legalization does occur. However, it is insulting to my soul, that the free labor that my ancestors gave to this country would be equated with the selling of marijuana."

    Black Lives Matter of Greater NY blasted Nixon's comments as "offensive and ignorant."

    "It does a disservice to our community for her to play into harmful stereotypes of African-Americans as drug users and dealers," the group said in a statement.

    ...The group called on Nixon to apologize.
     
    ...'and we'll accept your proposal as a token of your remorse'


    Presumably a proxy for 'Genius T. Coates'' position.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cynthia-nixon-pot-remarks-ignite-outrage-black-leaders-article-1.3976450

    Replies: @mobi, @Buffalo Joe

    Steve, you’ve got them firing on each other!

  30. other crimes in Chicago didn’t jump nearly as much when stops slowed down.

    Maybe they did, but people are less likely to report non-capital crime if murders are so numerous as to keep the police too busy to deal with much else.

    That’s in addition to your theory.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @International Jew

    The types of crimes I've seen the cops brush off as either not worth or capable of dealing with go up to and include fraud, dog bites by unrestrained dogs, and attempted murder. Seriously. OTOH, I was at a business a few years ago where a pair of cops showed up to take a report on...public urination. Hey, why solve real crimes when you can fill out reports?

    At this point I'm not sure what I'd bother to actually report to the police. Their chief strategy seems to be be trying to discourage you as much as possible from even reporting the crime.

    The irony us that one excuse for not letting local police help enforce immigration laws is that it would deter illegal immigrants from cooperating with the police and reporting crime - as if mayors and their police chiefs want even *more* crime reported in their towns.

    Replies: @International Jew

  31. Ending Stop and Frisk in New York didn’t lead to a spike in gun crimes. I thought it would, but it didn’t. That demands explanation.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @Impolitic

    A lot of the men stopped and frisked when that was the policy are doing time upstate. That's probably part of the answer. Another possible answer is that the policy has continued, albeit less blatantly.

    Replies: @Elf Himself

    , @AnotherDad
    @Impolitic


    Ending Stop and Frisk in New York didn’t lead to a spike in gun crimes. I thought it would, but it didn’t. That demands explanation.
     
    Hysteresis. (In addition, to the points Dave made.)

    It seems pretty clear to me that there are sort of "cultural" effects at play. Law enforcement policies (and economic and other effects) can move a city to a better (or worse) place than you might expect from just demographics. But that builds a "culture" among the populace that's a little bit "sticky". This is how we roll. This is what you can get away with and what you can't. (I haven't beee n to NYC in quite a few years now, but i understand it's a quite different place than the place full of grafitti and squeeqee shakedowns that it was in the 80s.) That sort of more relaxed--don't be a crazy ass fool man--culture can take a while to erode ... but erode it eventually will. Conversely if your community has a kind of wild west vibe, when the "bad actors" see the sheriff riding off into the sunset without cleaning up the town, things can get a little crazy right away.

    Replies: @anon

  32. @Harry Baldwin
    @Olorin

    Agree. Also experienced police officers can spot various indications that someone is carrying a gun. Here's a few from a list on the internet:


    Sweater and Jacket Zipper Line
    Whenever you zip up your jacket or a sweater, note the relative straightness of that zipper line. If you note it bends and points towards your concealed carry handgun, that's a hint you're carrying. Most people won't notice but someone trained to pick up on these things will definitely be watching.

    Clothes Don't Match The Season
    Being a concealed carrier doesn't automatically make us fashion experts. In most cases, far from it. But it is good to maintain a rough idea of the type of clothing everyone else is wearing to ensure we don't stick out. Wearing heavy woolen sweaters and jackets in the dead of summer definitely makes a person stick out like a sore thumb.

    Security Check
    Gun violators in particular will typically touch and/or adjust the weapons concealed on their bodies numerous times during the day. This may be a gentle and difficult to observe bump with the elbow, wrist or hand. On rare occasions, it could be a distinct grasping of the weapon as they adjust it. Violators often make this gesture when getting out of a chair or a car or when walking up a flight of stairs or high curb.

    Walk Differently

    The way a person walks reveals a lot about him or her. There's a number of “give-aways” to a person wearing a concealed carry handgun in just the way they walk. Rigid upper body movements. One hip stays put while the other extends the gait. One arm doesn't swing like the other. Concealed carriers tend to reduce the length of their walk. This is a natural reaction to not wanting to extend out too far on the side where the holster is situated so that the gun may show or protrude. They also tend to reflexively brace their arm towards the gun to ensure it doesn't slip out or fall out.

    Running – The Biggest Give-Away
    When crossing a busy street or just getting out of the rain, a concealed carrier will always tend to brace the side his gun is situated on. So if you see someone running to catch the cross-walk sign and he's got an arm braced against his body tightly, that's a dead giveaway he's carrying something he doesn't want to drop.
     

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Alden

    Thanks for the information. It could be useful for store clerks and people who live in bad neighborhoods.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  33. @petit bourgeois
    But being "suspicious looking" does not fall within the "armed and dangerous" standard nor is it "probable cause." Of course it is blatantly unconstitutional. Are you saying the 4th Amendment should apply to whites and not blacks?

    Remember the dissenting opinion in Terry, which remains true to this day in the modern police state:


    "To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path."
     

    Replies: @27 year old, @Svigor, @J.Ross, @Client 9, @MBlanc46

    Are you saying that the Constitution only applies to certain people?

    That how its framers felt.

    • Replies: @petit bourgeois
    @J.Ross

    I'm glad that you know the original intent of the framers. Makes things pretty clear that you use the same arguments that Marxists use. Such as "You are obviously racist but you don't know it because it's in your subconscious." You know what the framers meant but I don't?

    Terry vs Ohio was the worst decision ever to be handed down against the fourth amendment in the entire history of the United States Supreme Court.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @J.Ross

  34. @Impolitic
    Ending Stop and Frisk in New York didn't lead to a spike in gun crimes. I thought it would, but it didn't. That demands explanation.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @AnotherDad

    A lot of the men stopped and frisked when that was the policy are doing time upstate. That’s probably part of the answer. Another possible answer is that the policy has continued, albeit less blatantly.

    • Replies: @Elf Himself
    @Dave Pinsen

    I wonder if a lot of it isn't so many violent blacks being priced out of the city. That's certainly the impression one gets out here in flyover country.

  35. I am pretty much an absolutist on the Second Amendment. I love gun rights. I love guns. I love shooting them. I love having them. I am a gun nut.

    Philosophically, I believe in the right of every person of sound mind to own the means of enhancing violence, so that he may use it to resist those who unjustly seeks to injure him in some manner, be it the taking of life, limb, or property.

    Even so, I find the whole “guns reduce violence” argument silly. Guns in the hands of certain populations that tend to be law-abiding and community-respecting might deter crime, but likely not much from the base rate. Guns in the hands of certain other populations that tend to be impulsive and more prone to use violence to settle disputes will increase homicides most certainly.

    If you were to arm, tomorrow, the entire population of Japan, crime rates would not change appreciably up or down. Apply the same thought experiment on Rwanda. In other words, guns don’t cause crimes or deter them significantly – they simply magnify the violent tendencies of (or lack thereof) the population at hand.

    The real conundrum is this: We know with near certainty that taking guns from all blacks in this country would significantly reduce homicides. But doing so would require that we subject blacks to legal standards different from those we do to our non-black citizens and it would also impinge on the law-abiding and innocent blacks from defending themselves effectively from criminal predations of violent blacks. Reasoned and well-intentioned arguments can be made for either position. I happen to land on the side of identical rights for citizens, including those law-abiding and innocent blacks who suffer more from black criminals than anyone else, because I believe fairness has an intrinsic moral value (you might guess – correctly – that I am not a utilitarian).

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @anon
    @Twinkie

    How about cities passing draconian gun laws and then refusing to try and convict black males? That is part of the mix in Chicago. Currently, the most serious gun cases are kicked up to Federal violations.

    , @Svigor
    @Twinkie


    If you were to arm, tomorrow, the entire population of Japan, crime rates would not change appreciably up or down. Apply the same thought experiment on Rwanda. In other words, guns don’t cause crimes or deter them significantly – they simply magnify the violent tendencies of (or lack thereof) the population at hand.
     
    I think concealed carry puts downward pressure on violent crime, given a certain behavioral genetic profile; prudent people who carry guns will tend to avoid certain behaviors outside the home while carrying (drinking, drugs, anything that could lead to trouble and armed hostilities). People with longer time horizons don't want to shoot someone and feel their avoidable behavior helped force the situation.
    , @SWVirginian
    @Twinkie

    Some years back, Wayne Lapierre wrote Guns, Crime, & Freedom. In it he mentioned the 'study' done on violent crime/murder in Seattle, WA and a city in Canada [don't remember which one] that was supposed to be similar to Seattle. The city in Canada had significantly fewer violent crimes etc than Seattle, which the study had pitched as meaning that heavy gun-control in Canada was the deciding factor over gun friendly US.

    As it happened, the Canadian city had so few blacks and hispanics that their crime statistics were not broken out separately from the overwhelmingly white population. However, they were broken out in Seattle, which had a much higher black & hispanic population.

    The white population of Seattle had almost exactly the same crime rate as the Canadian city. What drove the crime rate up was Seattle's demographic difference, not its guns.

    , @Anonymous
    @Twinkie

    To a first approximation, all blacks have guns. Felon or not, if they are not either in prison or under some super strict ankle bracelet supervision, they've got guns.

    Whether said gun even works and whether they can hit the side of a barn door with it is another question.


    Nevertheless they will vote for gun control as long as the Big Man says to and that will continue as long as they are 1) biologically Africans and 2) their Big Men are effectively controlled by outside forces.

    That's "just the how it is" ,as my grandmother used to say.

    , @MBlanc46
    @Twinkie

    Identical rights for citizens requires control over who can be citizens.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  36. @Joe Stalin
    @Svigor

    Countermeasures to mm-wave imaging systems would include metallised fabrics, aluminum foil or something like carbon which would not allow the radiation to penetrate.

    Replies: @jim jones, @Svigor

    So now you need to carry your tinfoil hat on your hip

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @jim jones

    Exactly right. But you can also disguise the weapon's mm-wave emissivity using a material that radiates like the flesh of a human body. If I took a piece of cloth or felt and soaked it in water and placed it over the weapon an imaging radiometer would not be able to see it because of its radiation characteristics.

  37. @stillCARealist
    @petit bourgeois

    I though it was Stop, Question, and Frisk. The stop occurs because they have already committed a low-level crime, like jumping a turnstile. Question comes next, and then the frisking. I remember reading about this in Giuliani's NYC time when the cops would stop each jumper, or spray painter, or truant, and then find outstanding warrants, weapons, etc. To me that sounds like excellent policing, not unconstitutional.


    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
     
    The SC has interpreted that to mean law enforcement has legitimate needs to do warrantless searches in certain circumstances... like when a crime has just been committed. Of course it can be outrageous, but that's a price we pay to live in a modern city.

    Replies: @anon

    You used to be able to get on a commercial airplane without you or your luggage being warrantlessly searched. You didn’t need ID either just a ticket. Why isn’t the media pushing for searchless flying?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @anon


    You didn’t need ID either just a ticket. Why isn’t the media pushing for searchless flying?
     
    I know it's not the answer you'd assumed for your rhetorical question, Anon, but it's because they are clueless Statists like lots of other Americans. Picture being at the airport that day, 9/11/2001, and observing how things went. It wasn't the TSA, more like, I imagine, city, port-authority, or airport security guys, but they were searching for weapons, as always.

    The 99.95% of the people flying out of Boston Logan (and JFK too, of course) were law-abiding people up to no good. They did not bring any weapons with them, as they knew the flying public had been getting disarmed since the 1970's at airports. The bad guys had weapons, as pathetic as they were, because they were NOT law-abiding.

    Can you imagine if, on that fateful day, the Americans were not being disarmed (due to stuff like US Constitution, Amend II) and an armed man or two on each of those planes had put these hijackers in their appropriate places? It would have been something Americans could have been extremely proud of, and other nation's peoples envious of, as those with strict gun control might have known how it would have gone down differently. Instead, the world changed for the worse... just due to 19 ragheads with box-cutters! Were twitter around, I'd have to have written #SADDEST!

    So, yeah, #SEARCHLESS FLYING

  38. @Twinkie
    I am pretty much an absolutist on the Second Amendment. I love gun rights. I love guns. I love shooting them. I love having them. I am a gun nut.

    Philosophically, I believe in the right of every person of sound mind to own the means of enhancing violence, so that he may use it to resist those who unjustly seeks to injure him in some manner, be it the taking of life, limb, or property.

    Even so, I find the whole "guns reduce violence" argument silly. Guns in the hands of certain populations that tend to be law-abiding and community-respecting might deter crime, but likely not much from the base rate. Guns in the hands of certain other populations that tend to be impulsive and more prone to use violence to settle disputes will increase homicides most certainly.

    If you were to arm, tomorrow, the entire population of Japan, crime rates would not change appreciably up or down. Apply the same thought experiment on Rwanda. In other words, guns don't cause crimes or deter them significantly - they simply magnify the violent tendencies of (or lack thereof) the population at hand.

    The real conundrum is this: We know with near certainty that taking guns from all blacks in this country would significantly reduce homicides. But doing so would require that we subject blacks to legal standards different from those we do to our non-black citizens and it would also impinge on the law-abiding and innocent blacks from defending themselves effectively from criminal predations of violent blacks. Reasoned and well-intentioned arguments can be made for either position. I happen to land on the side of identical rights for citizens, including those law-abiding and innocent blacks who suffer more from black criminals than anyone else, because I believe fairness has an intrinsic moral value (you might guess - correctly - that I am not a utilitarian).

    Replies: @anon, @Svigor, @SWVirginian, @Anonymous, @MBlanc46

    How about cities passing draconian gun laws and then refusing to try and convict black males? That is part of the mix in Chicago. Currently, the most serious gun cases are kicked up to Federal violations.

  39. @The Only Catholic Unionist
    Virtue-signaling means never having to be consistent.

    (Consistency would also seem to dictate that they acknowledge that the gun-control laws were only originally meant to be enforced against Blacks, and therefore the Civil Rights movement should have meant repealing the gun laws rather than enforcing them against everybody (when Loving v. Virginia was decided, it didn't eliminate marriage), but that ain't happening anytime super-soon, methinks.)

    (I'm reminded of Napoleon's maxim "de l'audace, encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace". Now instead of l'audace, what's French for virtue-signaling...?)

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin, @a reader

    I’m reminded of Napoleon’s maxim “de l’audace, encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace”

    If you allow me, it’s from Danton.

    • Replies: @The Only Catholic Unionist
    @a reader

    The Wikpedia article says [citation needed] Maybe it is, I've have always seen it attributed to Napoleon. The over-arcing point remains: never explain, never doubt yourself, never worry about consistency, just keep virtue-signaling...

  40. Its no secret who the perps and victims are, but this is extreme.

    http://chicago.homicidewatch.org

  41. “So Cassell and Fowles need some theory for why street stops, when conducted en masse, were depressing gun violence but not other crimes—such that, when stop and frisk dropped, gun crimes alone shot up. They don’t have one.”

    This is idiotic.

    I don’t see how stop and frisk stops any crime other than gun possession, at least directly. Maybe drug possession, but unless it feels like a weapon, the frisk is illegal (unless, of course, cops lie about how something felt to them). The frisk turns up the evidence of the crime of possession. It does not directly deter property crimes or non-gun violence crimes.

    If, say, everyone had to walk around naked, and there were police everywhere, no one would ever carry a gun illegally. Gun crime would disappear.

  42. Right, stop-and-frisk policies get guns off the streets, and gun-control laws help to get thugs off the street. In any big city, the cops know who most of the thugs are, even if they cannot arrest and convict them. So they just wait until a known thug gives cops an excuse to question or arrest him. It could be a minor driving infraction, it could be a suspicious bulge in their pants. They get to frisk the thugs, and presto, with a gun or drugs, they guy is off the streets for at least a while, with a no-brainer trial or plea deal.
    And neither practice is unconstitutional. They just conflict with the fetishized version of the Bill of Rights inflicted by the Supreme Court in the late 20th Century. The Fourth, Fifth and Second Amendments were meant to restrict the Federal government, not the states.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Henry Canaday


    The Fourth, Fifth and Second Amendments were meant to restrict the Federal government, not the states.
     
    Your point would be valid, but for "Incorporation". Additionally, the New York State Constitution, Article XII states:

    Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state.
     
    There is no way for "persons" to be able to live up to this obligation without owning and being able to carry firearms.
    , @MBlanc46
    @Henry Canaday

    Incorporation doctrine.

  43. @anon
    @stillCARealist

    You used to be able to get on a commercial airplane without you or your luggage being warrantlessly searched. You didn’t need ID either just a ticket. Why isn’t the media pushing for searchless flying?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    You didn’t need ID either just a ticket. Why isn’t the media pushing for searchless flying?

    I know it’s not the answer you’d assumed for your rhetorical question, Anon, but it’s because they are clueless Statists like lots of other Americans. Picture being at the airport that day, 9/11/2001, and observing how things went. It wasn’t the TSA, more like, I imagine, city, port-authority, or airport security guys, but they were searching for weapons, as always.

    The 99.95% of the people flying out of Boston Logan (and JFK too, of course) were law-abiding people up to no good. They did not bring any weapons with them, as they knew the flying public had been getting disarmed since the 1970’s at airports. The bad guys had weapons, as pathetic as they were, because they were NOT law-abiding.

    Can you imagine if, on that fateful day, the Americans were not being disarmed (due to stuff like US Constitution, Amend II) and an armed man or two on each of those planes had put these hijackers in their appropriate places? It would have been something Americans could have been extremely proud of, and other nation’s peoples envious of, as those with strict gun control might have known how it would have gone down differently. Instead, the world changed for the worse… just due to 19 ragheads with box-cutters! Were twitter around, I’d have to have written #SADDEST!

    So, yeah, #SEARCHLESS FLYING

  44. “Stop and Frisk is an effective way to enforce Chicago’s stringent gun control laws”
    Yes, but this is actually backward of the real intent. Gun control is a policing tool, giving police immediate licence to make an arrest with a credible threat of conviction. Possession “is” the crime.

    Police need not solve some other crime, or catch someone in the act. They have all they need because having the gun is prima facie evidence of a crime. This is how the British incarcerated a lot of the Northern Irish IRA (the infamous hunger striker Bobby Sands was taken in on a gun possession charge)

    So gun control is what gives “stop and frisk” it’s effectiveness. Thus, stop and frisk is not so much about controlling guns, instead controlling guns is about making it easy to identify and prosecute criminals by using stop and frisk.

    It’s a pretty short putt to infer that combining stop and frisk with gun control will alter criminal behavior to stop wandering around town with a gun, and this is likely to reduce the use of guns in crimes or petty squabbles.

  45. @Joe Stalin
    @Svigor

    Countermeasures to mm-wave imaging systems would include metallised fabrics, aluminum foil or something like carbon which would not allow the radiation to penetrate.

    Replies: @jim jones, @Svigor

    Countermeasures to mm-wave imaging systems would include metallised fabrics, aluminum foil or something like carbon which would not allow the radiation to penetrate.

    If the law follows its current trajectory, my take is those countermeasures would be probable cause, too.

  46. @petit bourgeois
    Stop and Frisk requires a 4th Amendment Terry standard: A police officer has to have a reasonable belief that a suspect is "armed and dangerous." How this is carried out on the street has always been a mystery to me.

    Replies: @Svigor, @Olorin, @stillCARealist, @TheJester

    You can tell a lot about a person by race/ethnicity, dress, and demeanor.

    If a policeman is on the beat in a high crime area, encounters a black male dressed and behaving like a “gangbanger”, then there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is “armed and dangerous”. Yes, I know. Every time there is an altercation between police and a “gangbanger”, the police planted the weapon on the suspect … at least as the MSM tells the story. This can be dismissed outright unless there is credible evidence to the contrary.

    Two cameos:

    #1: I once bunked with a friend in a Hispanic community in the Los Angeles area. I used to go jogging in the mornings. Then, I noticed the unfriendly and hostile stares I got from Hispanic males who gathered on some of the front porches in the morning. They were smoking marijuana. I stopped jogging. If I had continued jogging, I anticipated an eventual physical confrontation for penetrating their territory … being in their space. It made good sense to avoid a confrontation.

    That reminded me of why I was bunking with a friend. We could not afford a house in the area closer to work (my commute was then 240 miles a day). A realtor had shown us housing in the area. I asked if there were neighborhoods that were more affordable. Her reply, “Yes, there are … but you can’t live there.” I guess I can’t jog there either.

    #2. We were once at a teacher’s meeting on the other side of the country … Arlington, VA. A few of us got into a conversation with a black female teacher … black as night. We talked about discrimination. She related that if she saw a bunch of black males sauntering down the sidewalk, she would cross to the other side to avoid the inevitable … being hassled and harassed. She said that at times, she feared worse.

    Question: If I and the black teacher at different ends of the racial/ethnicity spectrum can make the same types of rational decisions about who is dangerous and who is not based on race/ethnicity, dress, and demeanor, why can’t the police? Indeed, I think their judgment might be keener.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @TheJester


    We were once at a teacher’s meeting on the other side of the country … Arlington, VA. A few of us got into a conversation with a black female teacher … black as night. We talked about discrimination. She related that if she saw a bunch of black males sauntering down the sidewalk, she would cross to the other side to avoid the inevitable … being hassled and harassed. She said that at times, she feared worse.
     
    That's a given, especially after dark. Or are people too politically-correct these days to do the practical thing? Even a cop would be extra alert during such encounters. A civilian, without an open carry pistol at hand, would be unwise to test his luck.
  47. @Twinkie
    I am pretty much an absolutist on the Second Amendment. I love gun rights. I love guns. I love shooting them. I love having them. I am a gun nut.

    Philosophically, I believe in the right of every person of sound mind to own the means of enhancing violence, so that he may use it to resist those who unjustly seeks to injure him in some manner, be it the taking of life, limb, or property.

    Even so, I find the whole "guns reduce violence" argument silly. Guns in the hands of certain populations that tend to be law-abiding and community-respecting might deter crime, but likely not much from the base rate. Guns in the hands of certain other populations that tend to be impulsive and more prone to use violence to settle disputes will increase homicides most certainly.

    If you were to arm, tomorrow, the entire population of Japan, crime rates would not change appreciably up or down. Apply the same thought experiment on Rwanda. In other words, guns don't cause crimes or deter them significantly - they simply magnify the violent tendencies of (or lack thereof) the population at hand.

    The real conundrum is this: We know with near certainty that taking guns from all blacks in this country would significantly reduce homicides. But doing so would require that we subject blacks to legal standards different from those we do to our non-black citizens and it would also impinge on the law-abiding and innocent blacks from defending themselves effectively from criminal predations of violent blacks. Reasoned and well-intentioned arguments can be made for either position. I happen to land on the side of identical rights for citizens, including those law-abiding and innocent blacks who suffer more from black criminals than anyone else, because I believe fairness has an intrinsic moral value (you might guess - correctly - that I am not a utilitarian).

    Replies: @anon, @Svigor, @SWVirginian, @Anonymous, @MBlanc46

    If you were to arm, tomorrow, the entire population of Japan, crime rates would not change appreciably up or down. Apply the same thought experiment on Rwanda. In other words, guns don’t cause crimes or deter them significantly – they simply magnify the violent tendencies of (or lack thereof) the population at hand.

    I think concealed carry puts downward pressure on violent crime, given a certain behavioral genetic profile; prudent people who carry guns will tend to avoid certain behaviors outside the home while carrying (drinking, drugs, anything that could lead to trouble and armed hostilities). People with longer time horizons don’t want to shoot someone and feel their avoidable behavior helped force the situation.

  48. @Twinkie
    I am pretty much an absolutist on the Second Amendment. I love gun rights. I love guns. I love shooting them. I love having them. I am a gun nut.

    Philosophically, I believe in the right of every person of sound mind to own the means of enhancing violence, so that he may use it to resist those who unjustly seeks to injure him in some manner, be it the taking of life, limb, or property.

    Even so, I find the whole "guns reduce violence" argument silly. Guns in the hands of certain populations that tend to be law-abiding and community-respecting might deter crime, but likely not much from the base rate. Guns in the hands of certain other populations that tend to be impulsive and more prone to use violence to settle disputes will increase homicides most certainly.

    If you were to arm, tomorrow, the entire population of Japan, crime rates would not change appreciably up or down. Apply the same thought experiment on Rwanda. In other words, guns don't cause crimes or deter them significantly - they simply magnify the violent tendencies of (or lack thereof) the population at hand.

    The real conundrum is this: We know with near certainty that taking guns from all blacks in this country would significantly reduce homicides. But doing so would require that we subject blacks to legal standards different from those we do to our non-black citizens and it would also impinge on the law-abiding and innocent blacks from defending themselves effectively from criminal predations of violent blacks. Reasoned and well-intentioned arguments can be made for either position. I happen to land on the side of identical rights for citizens, including those law-abiding and innocent blacks who suffer more from black criminals than anyone else, because I believe fairness has an intrinsic moral value (you might guess - correctly - that I am not a utilitarian).

    Replies: @anon, @Svigor, @SWVirginian, @Anonymous, @MBlanc46

    Some years back, Wayne Lapierre wrote Guns, Crime, & Freedom. In it he mentioned the ‘study’ done on violent crime/murder in Seattle, WA and a city in Canada [don’t remember which one] that was supposed to be similar to Seattle. The city in Canada had significantly fewer violent crimes etc than Seattle, which the study had pitched as meaning that heavy gun-control in Canada was the deciding factor over gun friendly US.

    As it happened, the Canadian city had so few blacks and hispanics that their crime statistics were not broken out separately from the overwhelmingly white population. However, they were broken out in Seattle, which had a much higher black & hispanic population.

    The white population of Seattle had almost exactly the same crime rate as the Canadian city. What drove the crime rate up was Seattle’s demographic difference, not its guns.

  49. @International Jew

    other crimes in Chicago didn’t jump nearly as much when stops slowed down.
     
    Maybe they did, but people are less likely to report non-capital crime if murders are so numerous as to keep the police too busy to deal with much else.

    That's in addition to your theory.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    The types of crimes I’ve seen the cops brush off as either not worth or capable of dealing with go up to and include fraud, dog bites by unrestrained dogs, and attempted murder. Seriously. OTOH, I was at a business a few years ago where a pair of cops showed up to take a report on…public urination. Hey, why solve real crimes when you can fill out reports?

    At this point I’m not sure what I’d bother to actually report to the police. Their chief strategy seems to be be trying to discourage you as much as possible from even reporting the crime.

    The irony us that one excuse for not letting local police help enforce immigration laws is that it would deter illegal immigrants from cooperating with the police and reporting crime – as if mayors and their police chiefs want even *more* crime reported in their towns.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Wilkey


    one excuse for not letting local police help enforce immigration laws is that it would deter illegal immigrants from cooperating with the police and reporting crime
     
    Isn't it paradoxical that, on the one hand, we're told that immigrants (legal or not) are extraordinarily law-abiding, while on the other hand they are a potential fount of tips for the police?

    I mean, people who live by the law (me, for instance) generally don't know any criminals, don't know when the next cocaine transport is coming, don't know who might have robbed the liquor store, etc; we're pretty useless as a source of intelligence for the police.

    I guess that leaves reporting you've been victimized. Ok, but then, if you're victimized a lot that means others like you — immigrants tend to cluster — are criminally inclined, and we're back to the same paradox.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

  50. @jim jones
    @Joe Stalin

    So now you need to carry your tinfoil hat on your hip

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    Exactly right. But you can also disguise the weapon’s mm-wave emissivity using a material that radiates like the flesh of a human body. If I took a piece of cloth or felt and soaked it in water and placed it over the weapon an imaging radiometer would not be able to see it because of its radiation characteristics.

  51. anonymous[886] • Disclaimer says:

    As a kid growing up in Chicago I walked into sporting goods stores right in the central downtown area and saw rows of pistols and long guns for sale. All you had to do was be of age and show identification to make a purchase. This was before all these ridiculous gun laws that came into being years later. Plenty of war surplus was available such as M-1 rifles. Chicago was safe back then; there wasn’t this chaotic, random violence and atmosphere of fear. The gangster stuff of the old days was targeted and uninvolved bystanders weren’t affected. What we have now is a violent, mentally defective population that can’t comprehend concepts such as actions leading to consequences. Seriously, dysfunctional breeding practices within this population, along with drug and alcohol damaged youth, has produced a huge number of blacks with no capability or desire to lead a conventional life. There are thousands who transit through the special education system and gangbang until they die or go to prison. Stop and frisk might help if this population were to be intelligently targeted. Only about 15% of homicides in Chicago are cleared so never mind gun laws, what about the more serious laws regarding murder?

    • Agree: MBlanc46
  52. I fashion myself as someone who is very good at reconciling paradoxes and contradictions, because almost all of them have a through line or a common denominator. But I have not yet been able to draw a through line between the mentality that gun control is good and SQF is evil, when, as we all know, and as you wrote, you need to do SQF ubiquitously and pervasively if you have gun control. I cannot fathom some subversive ulterior agenda that is the common denominator of yes gun control no SQF.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @countenance


    I cannot fathom some subversive ulterior agenda that is the common denominator of yes gun control no SQF.
     
    Who, whom?
  53. @Dave Pinsen
    @Impolitic

    A lot of the men stopped and frisked when that was the policy are doing time upstate. That's probably part of the answer. Another possible answer is that the policy has continued, albeit less blatantly.

    Replies: @Elf Himself

    I wonder if a lot of it isn’t so many violent blacks being priced out of the city. That’s certainly the impression one gets out here in flyover country.

  54. @syonredux

    That can explain what’s baffling Slate: when the Chicago Police Department stopped so aggressively enforcing gun control in late 2015, why did murders shoot up much faster in early 2016 than less severe crimes? Because, just like gun control advocates say, guns are more lethal. So the safer it was for a criminal to pack heat, the more people died.
     
    One might also point out that a large chunk of homicides are committed by men acting as their own police.One guy insults another guy....he draws his gun.....Guy catches his girl with another guy....bang-bang.....Those kinds of incidents don't necessarily keep pace with muggings and robberies.....

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    One might also point out that a large chunk of homicides are committed by men acting as their own police. One guy insults another guy….he draws his gun…..Guy catches his girl with another guy….bang-bang…..

    Doesn’t get invited to a party ….. catches uninvited a*holes crashing his party …..

    • Replies: @German_Reader2
    @AnotherDad

    I read about a murder in Baltimore, where a young man (presumably black) killed one person INVITED to the murderer's birthday party, because the guest left too early and the person hosting the party felt offended by that.
    Parties seem in the ghetto seem to be a dangerous business, because there seem to be alot of situations, that can lead to bloodshed (a bit like weddings in Game of Thrones)

    Replies: @Anonymous, @MBlanc46

  55. @Wilkey
    @International Jew

    The types of crimes I've seen the cops brush off as either not worth or capable of dealing with go up to and include fraud, dog bites by unrestrained dogs, and attempted murder. Seriously. OTOH, I was at a business a few years ago where a pair of cops showed up to take a report on...public urination. Hey, why solve real crimes when you can fill out reports?

    At this point I'm not sure what I'd bother to actually report to the police. Their chief strategy seems to be be trying to discourage you as much as possible from even reporting the crime.

    The irony us that one excuse for not letting local police help enforce immigration laws is that it would deter illegal immigrants from cooperating with the police and reporting crime - as if mayors and their police chiefs want even *more* crime reported in their towns.

    Replies: @International Jew

    one excuse for not letting local police help enforce immigration laws is that it would deter illegal immigrants from cooperating with the police and reporting crime

    Isn’t it paradoxical that, on the one hand, we’re told that immigrants (legal or not) are extraordinarily law-abiding, while on the other hand they are a potential fount of tips for the police?

    I mean, people who live by the law (me, for instance) generally don’t know any criminals, don’t know when the next cocaine transport is coming, don’t know who might have robbed the liquor store, etc; we’re pretty useless as a source of intelligence for the police.

    I guess that leaves reporting you’ve been victimized. Ok, but then, if you’re victimized a lot that means others like you — immigrants tend to cluster — are criminally inclined, and we’re back to the same paradox.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @International Jew


    Isn’t it paradoxical that, on the one hand, we’re told that immigrants (legal or not) are extraordinarily law-abiding, while on the other hand they are a potential fount of tips for the police?

    I mean, people who live by the law (me, for instance) generally don’t know any criminals, don’t know when the next cocaine transport is coming, don’t know who might have robbed the liquor store, etc; we’re pretty useless as a source of intelligence for the police.
     
    Good point.
  56. @Impolitic
    Ending Stop and Frisk in New York didn't lead to a spike in gun crimes. I thought it would, but it didn't. That demands explanation.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @AnotherDad

    Ending Stop and Frisk in New York didn’t lead to a spike in gun crimes. I thought it would, but it didn’t. That demands explanation.

    Hysteresis. (In addition, to the points Dave made.)

    It seems pretty clear to me that there are sort of “cultural” effects at play. Law enforcement policies (and economic and other effects) can move a city to a better (or worse) place than you might expect from just demographics. But that builds a “culture” among the populace that’s a little bit “sticky”. This is how we roll. This is what you can get away with and what you can’t. (I haven’t beee n to NYC in quite a few years now, but i understand it’s a quite different place than the place full of grafitti and squeeqee shakedowns that it was in the 80s.) That sort of more relaxed–don’t be a crazy ass fool man–culture can take a while to erode … but erode it eventually will. Conversely if your community has a kind of wild west vibe, when the “bad actors” see the sheriff riding off into the sunset without cleaning up the town, things can get a little crazy right away.

    • Replies: @anon
    @AnotherDad

    New York is a one off. It is the global Finance capital. They have been systemically shedding their poor. Cars per person is low and especially low for poor. I hypothesize that maybe most residents who would be deterred by S&F have already been deterred and are dead, in prison, priced out, or aged out of the demographic. Its dynamic - you don't need to do it forever.

  57. So Cassell and Fowles need some theory for why street stops, when conducted en masse, were depressing gun violence but not other crimes—such that, when stop and frisk dropped, gun crimes alone shot up. They don’t have one. In fact, other research suggests that when proactive policing slows down, we might, if anything, expect a greater increase in property crime than violent crime.

    Huh? Isn’t the “theory” just staring one in the face?

    I thought all these journalists with elite school BAs while generally innumerate–and not prone to simple mathematical (graphical, viso-spatial) models, were at least supposed to have high verbal IQs?

    Stop and frisk –“> suppressing illegal guns in the hands of jackasses
    Illegal guns in the hands of jackasses–“> preferrentially involved (even relative to other crime) in Chicago homicides

    … not rocket science.

    It seems that for a man to write for Slate or other orthodox media these days they not only geld you, but give you some sort of lobotomy.

  58. @countenance
    I fashion myself as someone who is very good at reconciling paradoxes and contradictions, because almost all of them have a through line or a common denominator. But I have not yet been able to draw a through line between the mentality that gun control is good and SQF is evil, when, as we all know, and as you wrote, you need to do SQF ubiquitously and pervasively if you have gun control. I cannot fathom some subversive ulterior agenda that is the common denominator of yes gun control no SQF.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    I cannot fathom some subversive ulterior agenda that is the common denominator of yes gun control no SQF.

    Who, whom?

  59. @Joe Stalin
    @Harry Baldwin

    I understand that people can get their tailors to measure their cloths WITH their concealed weapons rig mounted. That way, they can mitigate the cop eye for clothing irregularities.

    Another way is to carry the weapon away from your body, thereby obviating the security check and running problem.

    A Missouri person I knew carried a pistol in a shipping envelope that could be torn open to access the weapon should the need arise. You could break up the outline using bubble packing material. The advertised products that can also do this (Zippable planners and such) suffer from the fact that cops also read the same materials.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

    Everything you mentioned is the style of high agency law abiding CCW holders, not Shitvarious with a Hi Point stuffed in his waistband.

    Guess which is being discussed in the current context.

  60. @mobi
    OT: 'Marijuana-franchise as Reparations for Slavery' is catching:

    Gubernatorial candidate...Cynthia Nixon took heat Monday from black leaders over her comments that creating a legalized pot industry in New York could serve as a form of reparations in black communities.

    "We (must) prioritize them in terms of licenses. It's a form of reparations."

    "I'm for legalizing marijuana and I like Cynthia Nixon but putting pot shops in our communities is not reparations," the Rev. Al Sharpton tweeted.

    ...Manhattan Democratic Party Chairman Keith Wright, a former long-time state assemblyman from Harlem, said Nixon's comment "is ill-informed, lacks understanding of the greatest crime in history, and should cease and desist."

    ..."I believe social equity should be a part of licenses to sell marijuana, if and when legalization does occur. However, it is insulting to my soul, that the free labor that my ancestors gave to this country would be equated with the selling of marijuana."

    Black Lives Matter of Greater NY blasted Nixon's comments as "offensive and ignorant."

    "It does a disservice to our community for her to play into harmful stereotypes of African-Americans as drug users and dealers," the group said in a statement.

    ...The group called on Nixon to apologize.
     
    ...'and we'll accept your proposal as a token of your remorse'


    Presumably a proxy for 'Genius T. Coates'' position.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cynthia-nixon-pot-remarks-ignite-outrage-black-leaders-article-1.3976450

    Replies: @mobi, @Buffalo Joe

    Ok, give them Tesla dealerships instead, as Tesla’s success, such as it is, depends on government subsidies. Oh wait, there are no Tesla dealerships.

  61. @AnotherDad
    @syonredux


    One might also point out that a large chunk of homicides are committed by men acting as their own police. One guy insults another guy….he draws his gun…..Guy catches his girl with another guy….bang-bang…..
     
    Doesn't get invited to a party ..... catches uninvited a*holes crashing his party .....

    Replies: @German_Reader2

    I read about a murder in Baltimore, where a young man (presumably black) killed one person INVITED to the murderer’s birthday party, because the guest left too early and the person hosting the party felt offended by that.
    Parties seem in the ghetto seem to be a dangerous business, because there seem to be alot of situations, that can lead to bloodshed (a bit like weddings in Game of Thrones)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @German_Reader2

    I remember sometime last century there was a stampede in a black church which killed and injured hundreds of people. Apparently it started because someone pulled a gun on someone else. In a church.

    , @MBlanc46
    @German_Reader2

    Parties, picnics, barbecues in the ghetto can all end up with a corpse. Disputes over the last piece of fried chicken can be fatal.

  62. @Henry Canaday
    Right, stop-and-frisk policies get guns off the streets, and gun-control laws help to get thugs off the street. In any big city, the cops know who most of the thugs are, even if they cannot arrest and convict them. So they just wait until a known thug gives cops an excuse to question or arrest him. It could be a minor driving infraction, it could be a suspicious bulge in their pants. They get to frisk the thugs, and presto, with a gun or drugs, they guy is off the streets for at least a while, with a no-brainer trial or plea deal.
    And neither practice is unconstitutional. They just conflict with the fetishized version of the Bill of Rights inflicted by the Supreme Court in the late 20th Century. The Fourth, Fifth and Second Amendments were meant to restrict the Federal government, not the states.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MBlanc46

    The Fourth, Fifth and Second Amendments were meant to restrict the Federal government, not the states.

    Your point would be valid, but for Incorporation. Additionally, the New York State Constitution, Article XII states:

    Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state.

    There is no way for “persons” to be able to live up to this obligation without owning and being able to carry firearms.

  63. @TheJester
    @petit bourgeois

    You can tell a lot about a person by race/ethnicity, dress, and demeanor.

    If a policeman is on the beat in a high crime area, encounters a black male dressed and behaving like a "gangbanger", then there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is "armed and dangerous". Yes, I know. Every time there is an altercation between police and a "gangbanger", the police planted the weapon on the suspect ... at least as the MSM tells the story. This can be dismissed outright unless there is credible evidence to the contrary.

    Two cameos:

    #1: I once bunked with a friend in a Hispanic community in the Los Angeles area. I used to go jogging in the mornings. Then, I noticed the unfriendly and hostile stares I got from Hispanic males who gathered on some of the front porches in the morning. They were smoking marijuana. I stopped jogging. If I had continued jogging, I anticipated an eventual physical confrontation for penetrating their territory ... being in their space. It made good sense to avoid a confrontation.

    That reminded me of why I was bunking with a friend. We could not afford a house in the area closer to work (my commute was then 240 miles a day). A realtor had shown us housing in the area. I asked if there were neighborhoods that were more affordable. Her reply, "Yes, there are ... but you can't live there." I guess I can't jog there either.

    #2. We were once at a teacher's meeting on the other side of the country ... Arlington, VA. A few of us got into a conversation with a black female teacher ... black as night. We talked about discrimination. She related that if she saw a bunch of black males sauntering down the sidewalk, she would cross to the other side to avoid the inevitable ... being hassled and harassed. She said that at times, she feared worse.

    Question: If I and the black teacher at different ends of the racial/ethnicity spectrum can make the same types of rational decisions about who is dangerous and who is not based on race/ethnicity, dress, and demeanor, why can't the police? Indeed, I think their judgment might be keener.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    We were once at a teacher’s meeting on the other side of the country … Arlington, VA. A few of us got into a conversation with a black female teacher … black as night. We talked about discrimination. She related that if she saw a bunch of black males sauntering down the sidewalk, she would cross to the other side to avoid the inevitable … being hassled and harassed. She said that at times, she feared worse.

    That’s a given, especially after dark. Or are people too politically-correct these days to do the practical thing? Even a cop would be extra alert during such encounters. A civilian, without an open carry pistol at hand, would be unwise to test his luck.

  64. anon[358] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    @Impolitic


    Ending Stop and Frisk in New York didn’t lead to a spike in gun crimes. I thought it would, but it didn’t. That demands explanation.
     
    Hysteresis. (In addition, to the points Dave made.)

    It seems pretty clear to me that there are sort of "cultural" effects at play. Law enforcement policies (and economic and other effects) can move a city to a better (or worse) place than you might expect from just demographics. But that builds a "culture" among the populace that's a little bit "sticky". This is how we roll. This is what you can get away with and what you can't. (I haven't beee n to NYC in quite a few years now, but i understand it's a quite different place than the place full of grafitti and squeeqee shakedowns that it was in the 80s.) That sort of more relaxed--don't be a crazy ass fool man--culture can take a while to erode ... but erode it eventually will. Conversely if your community has a kind of wild west vibe, when the "bad actors" see the sheriff riding off into the sunset without cleaning up the town, things can get a little crazy right away.

    Replies: @anon

    New York is a one off. It is the global Finance capital. They have been systemically shedding their poor. Cars per person is low and especially low for poor. I hypothesize that maybe most residents who would be deterred by S&F have already been deterred and are dead, in prison, priced out, or aged out of the demographic. Its dynamic – you don’t need to do it forever.

  65. Anonymous [AKA "Muzzlehatch"] says:
    @Joe Stalin
    I'm surprised that anti-gun Electrical Engineer Bloomberg hasn't used his Billions to create a fleet of concealed weapon detecting cars disguised as Google mapping vehicles.

    After all, the millimeter-wave imaging radiometer technology to spy on US citizens through their clothing has already been developed; all it needs is the approval of your anti-gun US Judiciary and then it's off to the races.

    https://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-14694/Final_Papers/GM0004-F.pdf

    http://www.jpier.org/PIERB/pierb46/20.12101505.pdf

    Replies: @Svigor, @Anonymous

    What happens when the weapons sensors pick up on someone with a CCW or a plainclothes officer?

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Anonymous

    I suppose given the current state of facial recognition technology in PRC you could attempt to look up the face in a government CCW database. An alternative would be for the government to use a so-called "Triggerfish" microcell to interrogate any localized cell phone activity for cell phone number and look that up in a database. Or the government could photograph the suspect and record GPS coordinates.

    Sound creepy? No more so than the government using license plate readers to record LP numbers of cars going into gun shows.

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article105726211.html

    Replies: @Anonymous

  66. @Anonymous
    @Joe Stalin

    What happens when the weapons sensors pick up on someone with a CCW or a plainclothes officer?

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    I suppose given the current state of facial recognition technology in PRC you could attempt to look up the face in a government CCW database. An alternative would be for the government to use a so-called “Triggerfish” microcell to interrogate any localized cell phone activity for cell phone number and look that up in a database. Or the government could photograph the suspect and record GPS coordinates.

    Sound creepy? No more so than the government using license plate readers to record LP numbers of cars going into gun shows.

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article105726211.html

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Joe Stalin

    I have a friend that goes to gun shows in his pickup and about five miles out he replaces his license tags with sportsball decorative plates, front and back. Cards front Royals/Chiefs back or whatever.

    On trucks, one state requires a front tag but not a back one and another adjoining one the reverse. He has never been bothered and if he is worst case would be a $100 tag infraction. No points, not even a misdemeanor.

  67. @a reader
    @The Only Catholic Unionist


    I’m reminded of Napoleon’s maxim “de l’audace, encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace”
     

    If you allow me, it's from Danton.

    Replies: @The Only Catholic Unionist

    The Wikpedia article says [citation needed] Maybe it is, I’ve have always seen it attributed to Napoleon. The over-arcing point remains: never explain, never doubt yourself, never worry about consistency, just keep virtue-signaling…

  68. This NRA idea that guns are less lethal than knives is one of the silliest ideas on the right. Why would people have gone to the trouble of inventing guns if they weren’t more efficient at killing people than knives and swords?

    Lets face it, guns are more lethal than knives, and most violent crime is between criminals, hence taking guns off criminals is likely to lower gun crime. Sure if you get more guns off the streets, knife crime will probably go up, but you aren’t going to have such a high body count since it’s harder and riskier to kill people with knifes, especially if you’re trying to kill a number of people at once.

    And yes, some property crimes will probably go up if fewer people have guns at home. Britain does have a pretty high burglary rate and and lower levels of gun ownership probably play a part in this.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @unpc downunder


    Britain does have a pretty high burglary rate and and lower levels of gun ownership probably play a part in this.
     
    Yep, and from what I've read, a much bigger ratio of resident-at-home to vacant-house burglaries too. It's quite different in the US, where, in places other than NYC and Washington, FS, especially in the 'burbs, burglars are much more scared of getting shot in the house than getting arrested.

    I'm just curious how the single white left-wing women feel about that... I mean if they'd not be too put-upon and triggered to read about that.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  69. @unpc downunder
    This NRA idea that guns are less lethal than knives is one of the silliest ideas on the right. Why would people have gone to the trouble of inventing guns if they weren't more efficient at killing people than knives and swords?

    Lets face it, guns are more lethal than knives, and most violent crime is between criminals, hence taking guns off criminals is likely to lower gun crime. Sure if you get more guns off the streets, knife crime will probably go up, but you aren't going to have such a high body count since it's harder and riskier to kill people with knifes, especially if you're trying to kill a number of people at once.

    And yes, some property crimes will probably go up if fewer people have guns at home. Britain does have a pretty high burglary rate and and lower levels of gun ownership probably play a part in this.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Britain does have a pretty high burglary rate and and lower levels of gun ownership probably play a part in this.

    Yep, and from what I’ve read, a much bigger ratio of resident-at-home to vacant-house burglaries too. It’s quite different in the US, where, in places other than NYC and Washington, FS, especially in the ‘burbs, burglars are much more scared of getting shot in the house than getting arrested.

    I’m just curious how the single white left-wing women feel about that… I mean if they’d not be too put-upon and triggered to read about that.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "I’m just curious how the single white left-wing women feel about that…"

    "Firearms are unique among weapons: only they allow weaker persons to resist predation by stronger ones. Analyst Linda Gorman writes [PDF]:

    " Reliable, durable, and easy to operate, modern firearms are the most effective means of self-defense ever devised. They require minimal maintenance and, unlike knives and other weapons, do not depend on an individual's physical strength for their effectiveness. Only a gun can allow a 110 pound woman to defend herself against a 200 pound man. (emphasis added)

    http://www.jurist.org/forum/2013/02/don-kates-crimonology-firearms.php

    Replies: @MBlanc46

  70. @Achmed E. Newman
    @unpc downunder


    Britain does have a pretty high burglary rate and and lower levels of gun ownership probably play a part in this.
     
    Yep, and from what I've read, a much bigger ratio of resident-at-home to vacant-house burglaries too. It's quite different in the US, where, in places other than NYC and Washington, FS, especially in the 'burbs, burglars are much more scared of getting shot in the house than getting arrested.

    I'm just curious how the single white left-wing women feel about that... I mean if they'd not be too put-upon and triggered to read about that.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    “I’m just curious how the single white left-wing women feel about that…”

    “Firearms are unique among weapons: only they allow weaker persons to resist predation by stronger ones. Analyst Linda Gorman writes [PDF]:

    ” Reliable, durable, and easy to operate, modern firearms are the most effective means of self-defense ever devised. They require minimal maintenance and, unlike knives and other weapons, do not depend on an individual’s physical strength for their effectiveness. Only a gun can allow a 110 pound woman to defend herself against a 200 pound man. (emphasis added)

    http://www.jurist.org/forum/2013/02/don-kates-crimonology-firearms.php

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    @Joe Stalin

    Martha McGaughey in “Real Knockouts” recommends carrying firearms by women. I believe that she does so because she hates men, but there are other reasons.

  71. @27 year old
    @petit bourgeois


    Are you saying the 4th Amendment should apply to whites and not blacks?
     
    Yes

    Next

    Replies: @petit bourgeois

    Well at least you admit your definition of a “person” is not consistent with the Constitution.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @petit bourgeois

    I think you're confusing the Constitution with attempts by its enemies to destroy it.

  72. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Joe Stalin
    @Anonymous

    I suppose given the current state of facial recognition technology in PRC you could attempt to look up the face in a government CCW database. An alternative would be for the government to use a so-called "Triggerfish" microcell to interrogate any localized cell phone activity for cell phone number and look that up in a database. Or the government could photograph the suspect and record GPS coordinates.

    Sound creepy? No more so than the government using license plate readers to record LP numbers of cars going into gun shows.

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article105726211.html

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I have a friend that goes to gun shows in his pickup and about five miles out he replaces his license tags with sportsball decorative plates, front and back. Cards front Royals/Chiefs back or whatever.

    On trucks, one state requires a front tag but not a back one and another adjoining one the reverse. He has never been bothered and if he is worst case would be a $100 tag infraction. No points, not even a misdemeanor.

  73. @J.Ross
    @petit bourgeois


    Are you saying that the Constitution only applies to certain people?
     
    That how its framers felt.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois

    I’m glad that you know the original intent of the framers. Makes things pretty clear that you use the same arguments that Marxists use. Such as “You are obviously racist but you don’t know it because it’s in your subconscious.” You know what the framers meant but I don’t?

    Terry vs Ohio was the worst decision ever to be handed down against the fourth amendment in the entire history of the United States Supreme Court.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @petit bourgeois

    Okay pal, I was waiting for you to try to claim that modern legal reasoning had any pretense of legitimacy (The Supreme Court is always right, even when it flicks precedent on and off like a lightswitch) or that Constitutional experiments of the twentieth century were anything but indefensible, but yeah I'll take "James Madison and George Mason were Jacobins" (they didn't have Marxists yet, I'm sure you knew that).

    , @J.Ross
    @petit bourgeois

    You know what the framers meant but I don’t?
    If you are defending the current regime of self-destructive experimentation then yeah you are not getting that from the Framers, you would have to defer to moden legal experts whom some Framers would surely consider enemies. The question you asked is pure pinkhair and you must have expected the replies you got.

  74. @petit bourgeois
    @27 year old

    Well at least you admit your definition of a "person" is not consistent with the Constitution.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    I think you’re confusing the Constitution with attempts by its enemies to destroy it.

  75. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    I am pretty much an absolutist on the Second Amendment. I love gun rights. I love guns. I love shooting them. I love having them. I am a gun nut.

    Philosophically, I believe in the right of every person of sound mind to own the means of enhancing violence, so that he may use it to resist those who unjustly seeks to injure him in some manner, be it the taking of life, limb, or property.

    Even so, I find the whole "guns reduce violence" argument silly. Guns in the hands of certain populations that tend to be law-abiding and community-respecting might deter crime, but likely not much from the base rate. Guns in the hands of certain other populations that tend to be impulsive and more prone to use violence to settle disputes will increase homicides most certainly.

    If you were to arm, tomorrow, the entire population of Japan, crime rates would not change appreciably up or down. Apply the same thought experiment on Rwanda. In other words, guns don't cause crimes or deter them significantly - they simply magnify the violent tendencies of (or lack thereof) the population at hand.

    The real conundrum is this: We know with near certainty that taking guns from all blacks in this country would significantly reduce homicides. But doing so would require that we subject blacks to legal standards different from those we do to our non-black citizens and it would also impinge on the law-abiding and innocent blacks from defending themselves effectively from criminal predations of violent blacks. Reasoned and well-intentioned arguments can be made for either position. I happen to land on the side of identical rights for citizens, including those law-abiding and innocent blacks who suffer more from black criminals than anyone else, because I believe fairness has an intrinsic moral value (you might guess - correctly - that I am not a utilitarian).

    Replies: @anon, @Svigor, @SWVirginian, @Anonymous, @MBlanc46

    To a first approximation, all blacks have guns. Felon or not, if they are not either in prison or under some super strict ankle bracelet supervision, they’ve got guns.

    Whether said gun even works and whether they can hit the side of a barn door with it is another question.

    Nevertheless they will vote for gun control as long as the Big Man says to and that will continue as long as they are 1) biologically Africans and 2) their Big Men are effectively controlled by outside forces.

    That’s “just the how it is” ,as my grandmother used to say.

  76. Anonymous[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_Reader2
    @AnotherDad

    I read about a murder in Baltimore, where a young man (presumably black) killed one person INVITED to the murderer's birthday party, because the guest left too early and the person hosting the party felt offended by that.
    Parties seem in the ghetto seem to be a dangerous business, because there seem to be alot of situations, that can lead to bloodshed (a bit like weddings in Game of Thrones)

    Replies: @Anonymous, @MBlanc46

    I remember sometime last century there was a stampede in a black church which killed and injured hundreds of people. Apparently it started because someone pulled a gun on someone else. In a church.

  77. J.Ross says: • Website
    @petit bourgeois
    @J.Ross

    I'm glad that you know the original intent of the framers. Makes things pretty clear that you use the same arguments that Marxists use. Such as "You are obviously racist but you don't know it because it's in your subconscious." You know what the framers meant but I don't?

    Terry vs Ohio was the worst decision ever to be handed down against the fourth amendment in the entire history of the United States Supreme Court.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @J.Ross

    Okay pal, I was waiting for you to try to claim that modern legal reasoning had any pretense of legitimacy (The Supreme Court is always right, even when it flicks precedent on and off like a lightswitch) or that Constitutional experiments of the twentieth century were anything but indefensible, but yeah I’ll take “James Madison and George Mason were Jacobins” (they didn’t have Marxists yet, I’m sure you knew that).

  78. J.Ross says: • Website
    @petit bourgeois
    @J.Ross

    I'm glad that you know the original intent of the framers. Makes things pretty clear that you use the same arguments that Marxists use. Such as "You are obviously racist but you don't know it because it's in your subconscious." You know what the framers meant but I don't?

    Terry vs Ohio was the worst decision ever to be handed down against the fourth amendment in the entire history of the United States Supreme Court.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @J.Ross

    You know what the framers meant but I don’t?
    If you are defending the current regime of self-destructive experimentation then yeah you are not getting that from the Framers, you would have to defer to moden legal experts whom some Framers would surely consider enemies. The question you asked is pure pinkhair and you must have expected the replies you got.

  79. 1638. Act X.
    All persons except Negroes are to be provided with arms and ammunition or be fined at the pleasure of the governor and council.

  80. @International Jew
    @Wilkey


    one excuse for not letting local police help enforce immigration laws is that it would deter illegal immigrants from cooperating with the police and reporting crime
     
    Isn't it paradoxical that, on the one hand, we're told that immigrants (legal or not) are extraordinarily law-abiding, while on the other hand they are a potential fount of tips for the police?

    I mean, people who live by the law (me, for instance) generally don't know any criminals, don't know when the next cocaine transport is coming, don't know who might have robbed the liquor store, etc; we're pretty useless as a source of intelligence for the police.

    I guess that leaves reporting you've been victimized. Ok, but then, if you're victimized a lot that means others like you — immigrants tend to cluster — are criminally inclined, and we're back to the same paradox.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Isn’t it paradoxical that, on the one hand, we’re told that immigrants (legal or not) are extraordinarily law-abiding, while on the other hand they are a potential fount of tips for the police?

    I mean, people who live by the law (me, for instance) generally don’t know any criminals, don’t know when the next cocaine transport is coming, don’t know who might have robbed the liquor store, etc; we’re pretty useless as a source of intelligence for the police.

    Good point.

  81. anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:

    I ‘ve lived in the South Side of Chicago for 2/3 of my life. I lived in pre Guliani, pre Bloomberg New York City during the worst murder and mayhem years of the late 1980s.

    Done the right way, I am strongly in favor of

    Gun Control (Stop and frisk)
    Birth Control (for the underclass)
    Immigration control

    I have no use for idiot Libertarian, Constitutionalists who come off as clueless as John Lennon in “Imagine” when dealing with the practical things in urban America.

    The criminal underclass can not be….

    “Free to Choose”

    They will choose to be barbaric destroyers of our urban civilization as is now being done in places like Baltimore. All the top positions in Baltimore law enforcement and education have been given to incompetent Black African Americans – the current Black AA police chief failed to even file income taxes for 3 straight years.

  82. @petit bourgeois
    But being "suspicious looking" does not fall within the "armed and dangerous" standard nor is it "probable cause." Of course it is blatantly unconstitutional. Are you saying the 4th Amendment should apply to whites and not blacks?

    Remember the dissenting opinion in Terry, which remains true to this day in the modern police state:


    "To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path."
     

    Replies: @27 year old, @Svigor, @J.Ross, @Client 9, @MBlanc46

    If we did not live in a mutli-racial society we would not be having this conversation.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Client 9


    If we did not live in a mutli-racial society we would not be having this conversation.
     
    The issue is not that the country is not mono-racial. The issue is that some of the races are not like others.

    I am NOT suggesting we have more Asian immigration, but if the country were 65% white and the rest East Asian, rather than black + Hispanic, our country's rate of crime would decline dramatically, probably lower than if the country were 100% white.

    Years ago, back when the FBI actually broke down the statistics, Americans of Japanese descent actually had a lower homicide rate than Japanese in Japan! That's pretty amazing.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  83. @Svigor

    Stop and Frisk is, to a large extent, about gun control: the cops pull over somebody they deem suspicious looking, pat him down, find him carrying a gun illegally, and send him to prison. Pretty quickly, suspicious-looking individuals carry fewer guns.
     
    It would be very effective if they sent him to weekend community service or probation or whatever, just so long as they confiscated the gun; the idea being to create a virtuous cycle where people carrying illegally are unable to afford to replace the guns as quickly as they're seized.

    All of this is blatantly unConstitutional, btw, but I'm okay with it as long as it doesn't obtain above the county level, because it gives leftists a way to put their money where their mouth is without involving real Americans.

    I love the leftist obtuseness about this. They reject their best chance at reducing gun violence because reducing gun violence isn't really their goal. It's just a bloody shirt they like to wave.

    So Cassell and Fowles need some theory for why street stops, when conducted en masse, were depressing gun violence but not other crimes—such that, when stop and frisk dropped, gun crimes alone shot up. They don’t have one.
     
    No, they don't need some theory.

    Replies: @MBlanc46

    I have the same constitutional scruples that you appear to have. But I have begun to wonder whether a constitution with strong protection of individual liberties can ever apply to two populations as disparate as northwestern Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  84. @petit bourgeois
    But being "suspicious looking" does not fall within the "armed and dangerous" standard nor is it "probable cause." Of course it is blatantly unconstitutional. Are you saying the 4th Amendment should apply to whites and not blacks?

    Remember the dissenting opinion in Terry, which remains true to this day in the modern police state:


    "To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path."
     

    Replies: @27 year old, @Svigor, @J.Ross, @Client 9, @MBlanc46

    Perhaps it is the case that the Bill of Rights should not apply to such disparate populations as northwest Europeans (who wrote the document and to whom it was intended to apply) and Sub-Saharan Africans.

  85. @J.Ross
    American freedoms are not for everybody, they're for anybody who understands and signs on to an at times arduous philosophy and lifeway. Our guiding legal genius for a generation has been Saul Alinsky and there will have to be a clawing-back.
    >but how do police know
    Same way you would if you were there, these people aren't the Pink Panther. Safe cities are as easy as giving cops the benefit of the doubt.

    Replies: @MBlanc46

    “American freedoms are not for everybody”. This is a conclusion to which people who actually believe in diversity may begin to come.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @MBlanc46

    They already believe in racial and political criteria.

  86. @Svigor
    @petit bourgeois

    I'm saying that I like decentralization. I'd rather have leftists assaulting their own 2nd Amendment rights in their own jurisdictions (muni and county, not state/federal) than assaulting ours throughout the country or a given state.

    And if we can't offer this choice to leftists, it becomes harder to expose them for the frauds they are.

    Replies: @MBlanc46

    Disaggregation will soon be the principal political issue in the US. The understanding that our political values are too disparate to be able to live together in a single polity will become more widespread every month.

  87. @Twinkie
    I am pretty much an absolutist on the Second Amendment. I love gun rights. I love guns. I love shooting them. I love having them. I am a gun nut.

    Philosophically, I believe in the right of every person of sound mind to own the means of enhancing violence, so that he may use it to resist those who unjustly seeks to injure him in some manner, be it the taking of life, limb, or property.

    Even so, I find the whole "guns reduce violence" argument silly. Guns in the hands of certain populations that tend to be law-abiding and community-respecting might deter crime, but likely not much from the base rate. Guns in the hands of certain other populations that tend to be impulsive and more prone to use violence to settle disputes will increase homicides most certainly.

    If you were to arm, tomorrow, the entire population of Japan, crime rates would not change appreciably up or down. Apply the same thought experiment on Rwanda. In other words, guns don't cause crimes or deter them significantly - they simply magnify the violent tendencies of (or lack thereof) the population at hand.

    The real conundrum is this: We know with near certainty that taking guns from all blacks in this country would significantly reduce homicides. But doing so would require that we subject blacks to legal standards different from those we do to our non-black citizens and it would also impinge on the law-abiding and innocent blacks from defending themselves effectively from criminal predations of violent blacks. Reasoned and well-intentioned arguments can be made for either position. I happen to land on the side of identical rights for citizens, including those law-abiding and innocent blacks who suffer more from black criminals than anyone else, because I believe fairness has an intrinsic moral value (you might guess - correctly - that I am not a utilitarian).

    Replies: @anon, @Svigor, @SWVirginian, @Anonymous, @MBlanc46

    Identical rights for citizens requires control over who can be citizens.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @MBlanc46


    Identical rights for citizens requires control over who can be citizens.
     
    True, especially in regards to immigration. However, the most troublesome population is native-born, i.e. blacks. Even with Hispanics, the American-born Hispanics are arrested/incarcerated at a much higher rate than the foreign-born (e.g. American-born Mexicans at 7x rate of foreign-born Mexicans).
  88. @Henry Canaday
    Right, stop-and-frisk policies get guns off the streets, and gun-control laws help to get thugs off the street. In any big city, the cops know who most of the thugs are, even if they cannot arrest and convict them. So they just wait until a known thug gives cops an excuse to question or arrest him. It could be a minor driving infraction, it could be a suspicious bulge in their pants. They get to frisk the thugs, and presto, with a gun or drugs, they guy is off the streets for at least a while, with a no-brainer trial or plea deal.
    And neither practice is unconstitutional. They just conflict with the fetishized version of the Bill of Rights inflicted by the Supreme Court in the late 20th Century. The Fourth, Fifth and Second Amendments were meant to restrict the Federal government, not the states.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MBlanc46

    Incorporation doctrine.

  89. @German_Reader2
    @AnotherDad

    I read about a murder in Baltimore, where a young man (presumably black) killed one person INVITED to the murderer's birthday party, because the guest left too early and the person hosting the party felt offended by that.
    Parties seem in the ghetto seem to be a dangerous business, because there seem to be alot of situations, that can lead to bloodshed (a bit like weddings in Game of Thrones)

    Replies: @Anonymous, @MBlanc46

    Parties, picnics, barbecues in the ghetto can all end up with a corpse. Disputes over the last piece of fried chicken can be fatal.

  90. @Joe Stalin
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "I’m just curious how the single white left-wing women feel about that…"

    "Firearms are unique among weapons: only they allow weaker persons to resist predation by stronger ones. Analyst Linda Gorman writes [PDF]:

    " Reliable, durable, and easy to operate, modern firearms are the most effective means of self-defense ever devised. They require minimal maintenance and, unlike knives and other weapons, do not depend on an individual's physical strength for their effectiveness. Only a gun can allow a 110 pound woman to defend herself against a 200 pound man. (emphasis added)

    http://www.jurist.org/forum/2013/02/don-kates-crimonology-firearms.php

    Replies: @MBlanc46

    Martha McGaughey in “Real Knockouts” recommends carrying firearms by women. I believe that she does so because she hates men, but there are other reasons.

  91. @MBlanc46
    @Twinkie

    Identical rights for citizens requires control over who can be citizens.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Identical rights for citizens requires control over who can be citizens.

    True, especially in regards to immigration. However, the most troublesome population is native-born, i.e. blacks. Even with Hispanics, the American-born Hispanics are arrested/incarcerated at a much higher rate than the foreign-born (e.g. American-born Mexicans at 7x rate of foreign-born Mexicans).

  92. @Client 9
    @petit bourgeois

    If we did not live in a mutli-racial society we would not be having this conversation.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    If we did not live in a mutli-racial society we would not be having this conversation.

    The issue is not that the country is not mono-racial. The issue is that some of the races are not like others.

    I am NOT suggesting we have more Asian immigration, but if the country were 65% white and the rest East Asian, rather than black + Hispanic, our country’s rate of crime would decline dramatically, probably lower than if the country were 100% white.

    Years ago, back when the FBI actually broke down the statistics, Americans of Japanese descent actually had a lower homicide rate than Japanese in Japan! That’s pretty amazing.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Twinkie


    Years ago, back when the FBI actually broke down the statistics, Americans of Japanese descent actually had a lower homicide rate than Japanese in Japan! That’s pretty amazing.
     
    Japanese in Japan includes everybody who can't save for a plane ticket. What I find more impressive is that our blacks outscore black blacks (free of the oppressive influence of the white man) on tests, and, for that matter, our Asians outscore Asian Asians.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  93. @MBlanc46
    @J.Ross

    “American freedoms are not for everybody”. This is a conclusion to which people who actually believe in diversity may begin to come.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    They already believe in racial and political criteria.

  94. @Twinkie
    @Client 9


    If we did not live in a mutli-racial society we would not be having this conversation.
     
    The issue is not that the country is not mono-racial. The issue is that some of the races are not like others.

    I am NOT suggesting we have more Asian immigration, but if the country were 65% white and the rest East Asian, rather than black + Hispanic, our country's rate of crime would decline dramatically, probably lower than if the country were 100% white.

    Years ago, back when the FBI actually broke down the statistics, Americans of Japanese descent actually had a lower homicide rate than Japanese in Japan! That's pretty amazing.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Years ago, back when the FBI actually broke down the statistics, Americans of Japanese descent actually had a lower homicide rate than Japanese in Japan! That’s pretty amazing.

    Japanese in Japan includes everybody who can’t save for a plane ticket. What I find more impressive is that our blacks outscore black blacks (free of the oppressive influence of the white man) on tests, and, for that matter, our Asians outscore Asian Asians.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @J.Ross


    Japanese in Japan includes everybody who can’t save for a plane ticket.
     
    Japanese immigrants of the yester years were different from the latest waves of selected Asian immigrants. They were largely desperate peasants who could not eke out a living in Japan.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  95. @J.Ross
    @Twinkie


    Years ago, back when the FBI actually broke down the statistics, Americans of Japanese descent actually had a lower homicide rate than Japanese in Japan! That’s pretty amazing.
     
    Japanese in Japan includes everybody who can't save for a plane ticket. What I find more impressive is that our blacks outscore black blacks (free of the oppressive influence of the white man) on tests, and, for that matter, our Asians outscore Asian Asians.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Japanese in Japan includes everybody who can’t save for a plane ticket.

    Japanese immigrants of the yester years were different from the latest waves of selected Asian immigrants. They were largely desperate peasants who could not eke out a living in Japan.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Twinkie

    That's true, but I think you still get an unfairly better chance at murder with a whole society than with almost any kind of self-selecting section.

  96. @Twinkie
    @J.Ross


    Japanese in Japan includes everybody who can’t save for a plane ticket.
     
    Japanese immigrants of the yester years were different from the latest waves of selected Asian immigrants. They were largely desperate peasants who could not eke out a living in Japan.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    That’s true, but I think you still get an unfairly better chance at murder with a whole society than with almost any kind of self-selecting section.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS