Remember When Obama Took The Guns?

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, if you remember correctly, NYC tried that.  It was called "stop and frisk", instituted by then Mayor Rudi Guliani.  From what I understand, it worked tremendously.  Thousands upon thousands of weapons were taken from criminals that were not legally allowed to possess them.  I also understand that violent crime went down during this period.  Yet, the folks from your side screamed that it was wrong to stop and frisk known criminals.  Y'all are all about government programs, until one of them actually works...  

To the bolded they were already breaking the law.  That's not coming after legal gun owners and "confiscating" their guns.  Did they take guns away from non-criminals?  No.

To the rest: the program caught flack because they targeted certain races and not "criminals".  Had it been implemented in a way to avoid targeting one race and still be as successful there would have been less flack.  Along with a question about how effective the program was in lowering violent crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/21/it-looks-like-rudy-giuliani-convinced-donald-trump-that-stop-and-frisk-actually-works/?utm_term=.79fb50251295

Quote:Crime in New York declined quickly after 1990 and has generally stayed low. There was a brief uptick last year at the same time as a further drop in the stop-and-frisk count, but in four of the past five years, levels of crime fell alongside the number of stop-and-frisks. Supporters of the policy often point specifically to gun crimes as a rationale for its use (since the policy often aimed at finding illegal firearms on suspects), but 2016 saw the fewest shootings during the first six months of the year in decades.



View image on Twitter

Quote:[/url][url=https://twitter.com/Azi]Azi

@Azi

STAT OF THE DAY -- 435: # of shootings in 1st six months of the year, fewest in city's history.
5:02 AM - Jul 12, 2016 · Washington, DC

A separate study looked at whether or not the policy had a significant effect on the number of robberies and buglaries in New York. No effect was found.


The broader problem with stop-and-frisk was that it was applied heavily to communities of color. More than half of those detained and searched, according to the NYCLU's data, were black, and nearly a third were Latino.




That's part of the reason that the NYCLU has the data: A federal judge determined that the NYPD needed to release data on its application of stop-and-frisk on a quarterly basis as part of a settlement of a lawsuit filed in 1999 charging that black New Yorkers were unfairly targeted. That claim was bolstered when a New York police officer recorded conversations with his superior officers in which they told him to target black and Hispanic people.

In every year, at least 80 percent and often 90 percent of those who were stopped were found not to have done anything wrong. When he was the city's public advocate, before being elected mayor, De Blasio released a report on the practice, finding that stops of whites were twice as likely to result in discovery of a weapon as a stop of a black person and that blacks were only two-thirds as likely as whites to be carrying something illegal. In other words: Most people were innocent, but whites who were stopped were more likely to be breaking laws regarding weapons or contraband.

In 2013, a federal judge determined that the policy of stop-and-frisk in New York City was discriminatory and unconstitutional. The city challenged the ruling, but the transition to the new mayor in 2014 meant that the appeal was dropped. The practice is still viewed very negatively by communities of color in New York City.