I'm not trying to make a sarcastic statement or anything, but I am genuinely unaware of how New York's gun laws differ from the rest of the nation. Can anyone breakdown what their laws are?

Yes, now is the time for all of us to join our voices with the families of the victims of gun violence and work towards reinstating the ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons, creating new laws to require registration of all guns, including those sold at gun shows, and requiring more extensive background checks on gun-ownersm

Together we can make a difference to make ours a safer society.

Crime rates are dropping overall in the country despite there being more guns than ever. Correlation =/= Causation.

Ummmm. Chicago just had their 500th homicide for the year. Read it on MSN. Gun control not really that effective! Funny thing is that nobody has posted a comment on that article calling for stiffer gun laws! Do liberals just block out articles like the one about Chicago? If they don't read it, it doesn't exist?

Crime rates are dropping overall in the country despite there being more guns than ever

Chicago just recorded it's 500th annual homicide.

Why is it that the left is for more gun laws but against STOP AND FRISK? That is the real reason that gun violence is down. The very real threat that they could be stopped and any time and be checked for carrying a illegal gun is why fewer guns were used and the murder rate is down.

You want proof, OK look at Chicago which has tougher laws against gun ownership then any other city in the country but no STOP AND FRISK laws, they just recorded their 500 murder of the year, gun violence is out of control and they have no answers for stopping it.

So recap.

Chicago not stop and frisk, super tough gun laws, one of the Highest murder rates in the country.

NY has stop and frisk, weaker gun laws than Chicago but a all time low murder rate and all time low gun crimes.

So liberal lefties which is the better answer, more useless gun laws the criminals will break anyway, or more laws that put criminals on notice that they will end up in jail for even carrying a illegal weapon???????

silverton says "work towards reinstating the ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons"

Fact check here. The ban on automatic weapons (or functional ban--they are only legal after securing very expensive tax stamps and permits) has been in effect for over 30 years and therefore needs no "reinstating." Further, automatic weapons are virtually never used in crime, so focusing on further restrictions is only a pretense at public safety made by either by the uninformed or by the cynical to manipulate the uninformed. Silverton, which are you?

Second fact check: semi-automatic weapons have never been banned, thus a ban on them cannot be "reinstated." Oh, sure, we had an "assault weapons ban" which banned certain semiautomatic weapons based on features that had absolutely nothing to do with the weapon's lethality or utility for criminal purposes. Ok, I guess, in theory, bayonnet lugs increase the lethality of a weapon by allowing someone to stab with it once they run out of bullets, but lets not kid our selves that we've some made the world a safer place by taking knives from the ends of guns.

Robbob, call me a crazy libertarian, but I'm a fan of both the 2nd Amendment and the 4th. I believe in my right to keep and bear arms, and I believe that I should not be randomly groped by law enforcement officers with no reasonable suspicion simply because 1 time in 1000 they will find an illegal weapon.

Justross I don't disagree on the 4th issue that you brought up, just don't like that spin the left is trying to put on this story that some how their gun laws were the only reason for the decline in gun crimes. Stop and Frisk was the main, the biggest reason for the decrease.

Point in fact is this story about Chicago's 500 murder of the year, which is interesting considering they have much tough and restrictive gun laws their compared to NY, that applies to the whole state of Illinois.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/28/16212238-grim-milestone-chicago-records-500th-homicide-of-2012#comments

The liberal left is trying to justify more gun laws that criminals will just ignore anyway, and it wasn't the actual number of guns found by stop and frisk it was the treat of being stopped and found with an illegal gun that caused a lot of criminals to not carry a gun.

The left likes to ignore facts, like how crime rates and gun deaths decreased in DC after the Supreme court struck down their handgun law so private citizens could legally own a hand gun, that little fact is not like by the left at all.

Or we could take the obama approach and cut school security: check out article below.

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/washingtons-school-security-failure

Interesting that the stereotype holds, most of the stop and frisk happens to colored and Latino and murder rate goes down. That might explain too why there was no looting in the Japan tsunami.

I have no problem with being frisked, as long as I am treated as if I am innocent until proven guilty. I think it is a really insight full law.

Advertise in you tourist magazines that you "only" had 413 murders this year.

Dav1bg--you really think you are being treated as innocent when you are walking down the street minding your own business when a cop walks up to you, makes you stop going where ever you were trying to go, demands ID and an explanation of what you are doing and why, and then puts you up against a wall while he goes through all your pockets and barks more commands at you?

Oh, and remember, these are commands. There is no consent involved. You cannot tell the officer "gee, I'd love to, but I'm late for work, so I don't have time." I have a hard time picturing anyone being ok with that. We only tolerate because it's something that happens to other people, to the blacks and the latinos, and not to you.

It's good to know that most Americans are finally realizing that stricter gun laws are needed.

Too bad it has taken so many needless deaths of innocent people, including children, to bring this to light.

Even so, I do think that having armed security in the lower grade schools is a good idea. We have it in the public high schools and no one seems traumatized by it. If we had kid-friendly police officers in the elementary and middle grade schools, perhaps they could speak about other safety issues as well, such as bike safety, stay away from strangers, no drugs, etc., and therefore not scare the younger children.

Gun control works in NYC? Then why does it not work in Chicago? (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/28/16212238-grim-milestone-chicago-records-500th-homicide-of-2012)

"Stop and frisk" is a police-state tactic. It apparently passes the liberal sniff test so long as it's used to look for guns. Shame on you for your support of such action; putting all of our liberties at risk by helping to promote fascism. And does "stop and frisk" really work? They took 800 illegal handguns out of circulation along with an additional 7,200 weapons. Does this prove that the weapons would have otherwise been used in homicides? Coincidence is not causality. ("Illegal handguns" also does not mean they were taken from people with criminal intent. Because handguns are essentially banned in NYC, someone carrying one for the lawful purpose of self-defense becomes a de facto criminal there. So technically the guns were seized from "criminals," but many of those criminals were probably manufactured by the city's ordinance.) Does anyone think that it is impossible for criminals in NYC to replace weapons lost to "stop and frisk"? One fact that would be illuminating would be to know if there was a net reduction in the number of illegal weapons (in particular, in the hands of real, not manufactured, criminals) during the period of "stop and frisk." I'm betting there was not.

Is the NYPD cracking down on gangs? If so, this probably accounts for much of the progress being made there. It's criminal intent that counts, not the guns. If a person has the tools, and no intent, those tools present no hazard to the public.

Robbob-1667446

Why is it that the left is for more gun laws but against STOP AND FRISK?

I'd say I'm on the left, and I can understand why people would consider "Stop and Frisk" a violation of rights, but I'm willing to make that sacrifice if it means more safety like in New York. Many(not all) liberals may carry around small bags of herbs that they do not want police to find, and I may partake in those same activities from time to time, but if I do it's from comfort of my own home. As far as I'm concerned, people who don't want to be frisked because they regularly carry something illegal, shouldn't be carrying it and need to suck it up if they want effective gun laws. If you want people to give up carrying guns in public, you're may have to give up carrying green in public.

They don't need weapons, they have trains.

Have common sense and reasoning run out of fashion or what is going on here? Why is it that, with few exceptions, everyone has to take such an extremist approach and either outright deny that gun control may yield some positive benefits or become oblivious to the reality that increased gun ownership has not resulted in a general spike in crime/murder rates?

JoeyJoeJoJunior, you correctly point out that correlation does not equal causation, something that seems to have been well received by gun-ownership proponents. I have to wonder if they are also willing to apply causation-isn't-correlation standard –the way they do to refute the idea that New York gun control is the cause of reduced homicides– when someone suggests that increased gun ownership is the cause for reduced homicide rates nationwide. You can't have it both ways, guys: if causation can't be established for gun control in NYC, it can't be established for gun ownership nationwide.

Also, it seems some here want to break out the champagne upon hearing of the 500th murder in Chicago this year. Hurray, someone's life was taken and your point was proven. I'm sorry I can't share your enthusiasm, but here's the bad news for you: there isn't such a thing as a long-term spike in murder rates in Chicago caused by gun control. On the contrary, Chicago's murder rate has been steadily dropping since the early '90s and this year's increase is an anomaly within the trend. In the 1970s, before the handgun ban, Chicago routinely saw upward of 800 murders per year (970 in 1974 is the city's record). This continued well into the 1980s and 1990s, until 1993, when Chicago had 931 murders. Ever since, there have been, rather reliably, fewer murders every year: 761 in 1997, 667 in 2001, 601 in 2003, 471 in 2006, and 433 in 2011 — the least murders in 45 years. There have been more murders this year than last, but there were also more in 2001 than 2000 or 2008 than 2007. Such one-time, year-to-year increases are not necessarily indicative that the downward trend somehow stopped. In other words, in the almost three decades that Chicago had its handguns banned, murders decreased dramatically. Again, not establishing causation, but, clearly, the ban didn't cause an increase in violence.

If there's any lesson to be gained from a comparison between Chicago and New York, it's not that gun control works or doesn't work. If anything, it's that different kinds of gun-control politics work differently, and they may work very well if properly put in place.

And yes, I'm all for stop-and-frisk and don't oppose profiling, as long as all statistics are clearly presented and there is sufficient backing to justify the way profiling is carried out. Call me what you will, but I trust the New York police to perform racial profiling more objectively than the Maricopa County sheriff's office (whose profiling practices are not backed by actual crime records).

It isn't that hard to imagine a country where (a) good citizens can continue to purchase and possess guns, (b) law-enforcement agencies have the legal tools to disarm criminals and/or keep them unarmed, and (c) violence, murder, and overall crime continue to go down. I'm an optimist, so I see us heading that way. The second Amendment is perfectly compatible with good, sensible gun control. Which is why extremist stances (no guns for anyone OR no gun control of any form) are damaging to the public discourse.

Riverboy you asked about our Gun Laws in New York City.

We have probably the most restrictive gun laws in the entire United States in New York City. Extra long waiting periods, you must apply for a permit that can take 6 months to get.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York

To the idiot who thought the number of murders in New York of 413 should be a tourist selling point (Sarcastically)

Are you aware that this is the biggest city in the US? BUT our Murder Rate is lower than dozens of other cities?

Lower than Louisville, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Tucson, Kansas City (4X higher) Oh I could go on and on listing cities with higher murder rates...but how about this. next time you spout off ....do some research first.

By the way we are the lowest on the list for Rape, Lowest for Auto Theft, and the LOWEST for Burglary.

Maybe you need to watch a little less TV

Source US Census Statistical Abstract 2012

Did any of you really read the article?

Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly credited stepped-up policing for the 19.6 percent drop in homicides (from 515 last year to 414 through Friday) and the 15.9 percent decline in overall shootings (from 1,608 last year to 1,353).

Sorry anti-gunners, that's not gun control. Isn't that what the NRA proposed for schools??? They also called for enforcement of the laws already on the books!

Now, do you really want to end gun violence or just impose more senseless, ineffective ink and paper and surrender yet more liberty?

So New Yorkers got all soft and fuzzy in recent years? It kind of makes the police want to be friendly and feel the texture of their bodies.

Because we all know that criminals are the first ones to line up and follow the rules when laws go into effect. I suppose next Bloomberg will propose the USA completely disarm all of it's nuclear weapons and defenses so we can show the rest of the world how to be peaceful. Or is he against guns, but for nuclear weapons?

Here's the basic fact of life that our forefathers knew: If you take the right to protect one's self away, then you will be trampled on by others with more power. By people that DON'T follow the rules. I also know an elderly woman who had her house attacked by thugs. She grabbed a gun off the wall, cocked it, and the kids ran... had she not had that, she'd probably have been robbed, or worse. People need to stop reacting with a knee jerk, and start thinking of the consequences. Tougher gun laws will not disarm criminals. This is why we call them criminals.

Because we all know that criminals are the first ones to line up and follow the rules when laws go into effect...

Tougher gun laws will not disarm criminals. This is why we call them criminals.

Then by your logic, we probably shouldn't have laws against anything. Why bother having harsh punishments for rape and murder if people are still going to rape and murder each other?

So New Yorkers got all soft and fuzzy in recent years?

Would you rather they spring into a Wolverine-like blood-frenzy at the drop of a hat?

Kamaaina

Gun control is working superbly and setting all time records for New York City. Imagine how much good it could do for the rest of this great nation.

Yeah, except the murder rate is down across the country. All crime is down percentage wise. So tell me again why we need new gun laws? The fact is that it's a statistical anomaly due to changing demographics, economic trends and the fact that the remaining perps dont want to do the time. If your oppressive gun laws worked you wouldnt have one thousand three hundred murders in one year.

riverboy says "As far as I'm concerned, people who don't want to be frisked because they regularly carry something illegal, shouldn't be carrying it"

And what about the people who aren't carrying anything illegal and don't want to be stopped and frisked because it's insulting, demeaning, and harassing? What about those folks?

The NYPD doesn't release statistics on it's stop and frisk contacts, because it doesn't want it examined carefully, but outside observers estimate that one stop and frisk in 1000 finds a weapon, 1 in 100 drugs. That's a lot of people doing absolutely nothing wrong forced, under threat of violence and arrest, to subject themselves to being put up against a wall and answer questions about where they are going and why. Don't kid yourself in to believing this is polite, respectful, or enjoyable.

nyc law, getting a carry permit is near impossible unless your are a cop, armed guard etc. The process is long and pretty thorough. the penalty for a hand gun with no other crime attached is 5 years.

It's their "Stop & Frisk" policy that is taking guns from criminals, not laws banning guns. Criminals are not giving up their guns because the law says it's bad.

justross, I said if that's the sacrifice that needs to be made to reduce murders, I would do it. I wouldn't like being frisked without cause, but if it's found out that the Stop and Frisk law decreases gun violence(I'm not convinced yet) then yes I will support it.

It's their stop & frisk policy that resulted in the downturn, not gun laws. Criminals did not suddenly hand in their illegally owned guns and repent over their criminal activities.

All NYC has done is to implement unwarranted search and seizure (stop & frisk) and then use the results to claim that gun laws had something to do with less homicides.

So, besides trampling the 2nd Amendment, they have moved on to trampling the 4th Amendment. Before everyone celebrates, you'd better wake up and realize that people like this have no regard for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as long as they get what they want.

It's only a matter of time, before they start down the path of "regulating" other rights, such as free speech. As it stands, the NDAA makes it legal for the government to indefinitely hold any US Citizen that they deem "belligerent" without Due Process (that means they can lock you away for life without a trial).

One should not overlook the fact that the US population in general is aging, the average US citizen is now older than at any time in the past. Lawbreaking, especially committing violent crimes, is something that is mostly done by younger males. Fewer younger males in the population is going to equal fewer violent crimes committed, all things being equal.

At the peak of violent crime, circa 1990, the last of the 'baby boomer' generation would have been in their mid-20's. Those folks are now twice as old as they were then. Life on the streets is rough, and criminals tend not to live to be especially old given that what goes around comes around. A lot of the guys who were busy shooting each other back then simply aren't with us anymore, and many who survived to make it to roughly 50 years of age are no longer in any shape to cause much trouble to society anymore.

Oh cunical,you just saved me from posting.

Bloombugger and Crappy Kelly are the to biggest Gestapo Bold Face Lying Sacks of Crap, on this Planet!

They emulate their god Obama,another Bold Face Criminal lying sack of Crap!

Waaa Waaaa Obama Waaaa Waaaa

Sorry boys - the days of your gun fun will be over. Not to worry, there's lots of other things you can do without them.

Charlie: How does banning a law-abiding woman from owning a gun better protect her from rape, abuction and so forth?

Charlie is eager to give up other's rights, so long as it fits with what he wants. Just wait until they start limiting free speech; then he'll suddenly care about the Bill of Rghts. The drop is due to their "Stop & Frisk" policy that is taking guns from criminals, not laws banning guns. Criminals are not giving up their guns because the law says it's bad.

Only a good role model if you're not a minority male between the ages of 13 and 40, or if you are and happen to enjoy being forcibly groped by strangers in uniform while you're walking down the street minding your own business.

In order to net the 8000 weapons seized by the police, they've had to perform over a million "stop and frisks."

Sounds like what they do in Arizona, except with illegals. So what's your problem with this again?

So, you think the rest of America should implement "stop & frisk" policies based on profiling? This has nothing to do with NY's gun laws, because criminals don't obey laws. It's because the police are randomly stop and frisking people.

Grim milestone: Chicago records 500th homicide

A man gunned down Thursday on Chicago's west side marked what police say is the city's 500th homicide of the year.

NYC homicides, shootings at modern record lows

New York City gun law. #1 strictest in the Nation. It works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York

Chicago gun law a work in progress:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/chicago-gun-law-change-wi_n_1705694.html

Also, with sale from private parties accounting for 40% of illegal guns on the streets, stricter nationwide bans are necessary. If an effective gun law works in NYC, it will work anywhere in the USA. That includes your town.

Obviously, private party sales need to be addressed.

Kammaaina sorry to break this sad news but Chicago and more to the point Illinois has much stricter gun laws, wiki is not the most accurate source to quot.

As I stated above I not a big fan of Stop and Frisk, 4th amendment issues and all, but that is the biggest reason for the decreased rates in NY. Liberal lefties love more gun laws that criminals will just ignore but hate stop and frisk laws that were responsible for criminals not carrying guns due to the increased chance of being stopped with a illegal gun.

The left can spin this all they want but they know the truth about stop and frisk and anyone with any sense know the truth about this, to deny it is just plain crazy.

Take a look at this story and try and explain how more laws would have stopped this.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/28/16212238-grim-milestone-chicago-records-500th-homicide-of-2012#comments

As far as the Huffingtonpost story one big point about Mayor Rahm Emanuel new law, ahhhh IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL FOR A FELON TO OWN A GUN, so his new law wont change jack.

More smoke and mirrors from the party of ahhhhhhhh it's someone elses fault, more government more useless laws

It is odd to me that many people are afraid of the police. Obviously, there are going to be a few bad apples in any organization, but I've always considered the police and the military in our country as friends, and people to be respected, but not feared.

Stop and frisk seems a great idea to me. It is working as part of a comprehensive gun law. Taking back America from the gun dependent, gun obsessed and criminals is an eve evolving process. It will continue as the NRA devotee's rhetoric falls far short with continued, escalating tragedies.

This has nothing to do with NY's gun laws. The criminals aren't suddenly giving up their guns because the law say they should. It's the stop and frisk policy that is doing it. However, I find it funny that you are all for unwarranted search & seizure (aka stop & frisk), when you are probably one of the same people that think it was wrong for Arizona to do profiling in an attempt to catch illegal aliens.

Conservatively, I'd estimate 90%. The rest are the Asians.

For homicides here is some interesting data: Homicides by Race

I don't understand that either. I'm assuming that the other 7,200 were legally owned by people who did not actually live in NYC but were there for business or travel. But that is a confusing statement.

I hadn't thought of the 7,200 being weapons other than guns, but who knows.

Kelly said officers had taken 8,000 weapons "out of the hands of people we stop, 800 of them illegal handguns,"

That is good they found 800 illegal guns. Why don't they clarify the status to the other 7,200 weapons? Were they illegal rifles, shotguns? Were they legally owned by the people they searched? Were the guns returned to the legal owners or confiscated?

Would somebody do some actual journalism please and find out BOTH sides of the story?

i find it difficult to make sense of many of the numbers thrown out regarding guns. I was reading an article that said gun applications in Kentucky (the highest rate) were 5 times the rate of the any of the next 3 highest states, West Virginia, Montana and Alaska for Jan- Nov. 2012. Why would that be ? The figure was way out of whack.?

Accurate reporting of facts is non- existient in the United States. There are reasons to have a unarmed populace in a global enviroment. When there are no more wars I will think about not owning weapons of mass destruction. Ninja stars? Slingshots? Marbles? Power tools?

"im not racist" Says you.

I think its closer to 90% by Blacks and Latinos, the rest by the Asians. I'm not racist either, unless you give me a reason to be.

Isn't NYC about 35% white ? Forget that I looked up Wikipedia and the US Census and the figures aren't even close. It's like "To Tell the Truth" with these stats. If you can't get a consensus on stats, where can you get a consensus ? And forget guns- they don't even have any kind of real stats on the majority of it.

I'm not racist either, but I bet the murder rate would go down even lower if they started profiling crazy-azzed white guys for their propensity to shoot up some random public event anywhere in the continental United States.

I also bet we could eliminate child molestations and crystal meth abuse all together if you just start rounding up white guys en masse.

You're right, profiling those most prone to certain crimes DOES work!

"I'm not racist," says the ignorant racist.

Fricken fairies ye be there 'thetruetime' and 'dave-sunny so.cal'. You can't blame the guy for saying he isn't racist! He isn't! He is stating a simple fact and you two are too ignorant and childish to deal with it! America needs to grow up and stop caring so much about stupid crap like race. It's pathetic that anyone has to say "im not racist". People should be able to speak their mind without someone saying their racist! If anything, you two are racist! youre the guys that yell "HATE CRIME" when a black men is punched by a white man and laugh when it's the other way around. You two disgust me and make it impossible for civilized people to have a conversation with involving race! John should have just been able to speak his mind without saying he wasn't racist, but because of people like you he needs to say it and it doesn't even help him! Ah! I'm done with my outburst!

Yah, and lets take everyone's guns too. Fascist America. But we will be safe.

@Dav1bg: I think your sarcasm detector is broken.

Matt's sarcasm is well-taken. People are far to eager to give up the rights of others, but fail to see how quickly their rights will also be eroded.

Seriously?

You do know 9/11 didn't happen this year right?

Same thing as, "hey we are doing great, we only had 410,000 lay offs this week, we had 420,000 last week". 0 is the only good news-idiots.

Remember there are more then 6 million people in NYC.

Don't forget, New Years Eve still isn't over yet, they just might hit that 515 number. Wouldn't it be just great to walk down the street always worrying about the police stopping you just because they don't like your looks? But then again I thought that was a violation of your rights, I guess bloomberg and his own personal gestapo run with a different set of rules.

Still not a racist?

First "Logic"because one dead solider killed in a war that does not have a defined purpose, is one too many and if that'swhat defines being "Left" them I guess I'm "Left". Second Logic, can we stop all crime, no, but we choose to go to war. Third "Logic" their celebrating a significant reduction in the number of deaths, not applauding the fact that 400 were killed!! Oh damm, I just realized I was stating to obvious, sorry, my bad....Never Mind.

So the 400 dead in NY had a purpose? I am against Afghan and a conservative but it sure sounds like the libs are going to flop how ever they need to and defend useless policy. After all Afghan is an obama war now, we have been screaming GET OUT since bin Laden bit it. I would like to see the population growth numbers for NY. If it is dropping off....running out of people to kill...for instance. I am sure there are many variables that come into play other than failed control policy. For instance crime related violence in Washington State is going to make a big dive in 2013-we legalized pot but have no new gun laws.....spin spin spin

President wants to end the Afghanistan war but he is being stonwalled by a certain teahad cntrolled House that is bitching about the ending of THIS over decade long war with the excuse that it "will weaken our national security" just like they did when we finally withdrew combat troops from Iraq statin that "he did THAT too soon" but this was also that same bunch of idiot hypocrites that said " Libya took too long, cost too much and we led from behind which showed WEAKNESS" though it resulted in not any combat troops on the ground, any or our people getting killed, getting people freed from the almost 40 year regime of Quadaffi who was killing his own people but I know repubs loved HIM for American interests in their OIL just like Saudi Arabia whose asses we kiss for THEIR oil and all the years we kissed Saddam Hussein's ass during the 80's and Iran's when were ARMING them because the Russians were our "enemy" and we were helping the Afghans fight the then Soviet Union but now were are at war with the same ME "enemies" we armed when the "messiah Reagan" was arming these countries but of course we are not supposed to talk about any of that because it's old news and doesn't matter anymore according to you dumbass conservatives whose precious leaders are never supposed to be blamed for all the mess we ARE IN NOW that has coem back to bite us in square in the ass and why are freaking bankupted by all these wars.....

Go blow, all of you and your BS because none of you can stand the TRUTH, yet you shriek about "spin and the "left being stupid". This country is IN THE MESS we are in because of all the stupidity and war mongering RW who are masters at the "spin" since WWII and scare tactics to make people think we need to be in perpetual fear of an "enemy that does'nt exist so we MAKE ONE to justify the endless defense spending we've done all these years and then all the friggin wars which WILL cause our downfall economically along with all these endless years of useless tax cuts that have ONLY LINED the pockets of the "corporate state" while the rest of the populace-US and the government to be able to serve the needs of the country, has steadily been strangled. Happy NOW?

It's their "Stop & Frisk" policy that is taking guns from criminals, not laws banning guns. Criminals are not giving up their guns because the law says it's bad. Try reading the article and keeping the context straight.

This is proof that we don't need more gun laws, but the police need to enforce the laws that already exist. Put police officers where crime exists and not in the doughnut shop.

Gun laws do not make guns less accessible to criminals, because criminals do not obtain them legally. Drugs are illegal, yet they still manage to make it to every corner of America. It will be no different if all guns were banned. Criminals would find a way to import them into the country and only law-abiding citizens would have been punished by the ban.

NYC has the stiffest gun laws in the country. Not similar to other cities.

How can liberals claim New York has the toughest gun laws when Chicago has banned guns outright? Seriously, it's time to stop making stuff up.

11secderp - Actually, Chicago's gun laws are more strict. This decline has nothing to do with gun laws. Criminals don't suddenly obey the law because you create more of them. This has to do with "stop & frisk" policies.

NYC is more than twice the size of Chicago, though, isn't it?

@ ChicagoT

New York City has a population of 8.2 million people. With 415 homicides among the populace, that's a 1 in roughly 19,759 chance of being a victim of a homicide.

Chicago has a population of around 2.7 million people. With 500 homicides this year, that's a 1 in 5400 chance of being a victim.

Now if Chicago had the same populace as NYC, then you'd make a valid point. But it doesn't, and thus your point fails.

Do some math and you'll understand why Chicago has a worse homicide rate than NYC.

It's their "Stop & Frisk" policy that is taking guns from criminals, not laws banning guns. Criminals are not giving up their guns because the law says it's bad.

Don't forget the subway

People are silly. They would dislike the police kicking down doorways in the middle of the night without a search warrant. But that is the only way you will remove guns from the hood or from criminals. It worked great for Nazi Germany, Communist China and the former USSR.

Gun control is working real good in Chicago.... Said no one EVER.

Try reading the Constitution, idiot. The NRA RULES this jungle.

DancerTiffy, a moronic name for a moron.

It's their "Stop & Frisk" policy that is taking guns from criminals, not laws banning guns. Criminals are not giving up their guns because the law says it's bad.