Rudy's Currently Stated Positions on Guns

P

publius42

New member
I think I've about beaten Rudy's past to death, so let's discuss his currently professed set of views about guns, starting with gun control in New York City.

Here's what Rudy says on his website

To deal with a city where crime was out of control, Mayor Giuliani worked to get guns out of the hands of criminals — resulting in a 66% drop in the murder rate and 72% reduction in criminal related shootings.
Click to expand...

I have two questions about that.

1. Does anyone think that New York City style gun control "works to get the guns out of the hands of criminals" as Rudy still believes, or do you think it works better at disarming the general, law-abiding populace?

2. Do you believe that Rudy's efforts to enforce strict gun control were a major factor in reducing criminal related shootings, as he still believes?

Moving along to his lawsuit against gun manufacturers

Giuliani said, “The case took a lot of twists and turns in the direction of trying to get a lot of information about the tracing of guns that would be used for private lawsuits” instead of solely for law enforcement purposes.
Click to expand...

Again I have two questions.

1. This was not forseeable? Come on.

2. What about the central premise of the suit, the gun makers and gun stores are responsible for what happens to guns after they are sold? Rudy still stands by the central premise, and has not said a word to suggest that he was wrong in filing the lawsuit in the first place.

If Republicans nominate a candidate who still believes that New York style gun control is necessary and effective, and who still believes that gun makers and gun shops (and not big government) are responsible for the black market in guns, they deserve to lose when gun owners sit out the election or vote for someone else. You folks who are so terrified of Hillary should work very hard to defeat Rudy's nomination.
 
There is no difference between Hillary's views on gun contol and those of Giuliani. The only difference is their most recent press releases. Giuliani is lying through his teeth that he has seen the light and Hillary is keeping her mouth shut.

Fred Thompson is the only candidate I've seen visiting my local (Lakeland, Florida) Gun Show.
 
Isn't there some validity to the theory that increased enforcement of existing gun laws does actually reduce gun related crime? I suspect that the vast majority of NYC's decrease in crime was due to increased money spent on law enforcement, rather than any new laws.

I don't agree that the basic premise was to make gun shops somehow responsible for the use of guns after the sale. There are gun shops and distributers who bend and outright break laws out of greed. They shouldn't get a free pass any more than Chinese dogfood manufacturers should get a free pass when they put poison in the dogfood.

In fact, I believe quite strongly that if the gun laws on the books(as the apply to individuals and businesses) were enforced more uniformly and stringently then calls for newer more draconian laws would ease somewhat.
 
then calls for newer more draconian laws would ease somewhat.
Click to expand...

Dream on. Back in the '80s, there was virtually no crime with so called "Semi-automatic assault weapons", yet California got together with some anti-gun groups and generated enough propaganda to eventually get a nation wide ban. They even had to make up the name. They sent questionnaires to police agencies across the country trying to generate statistics. Most agencies responded they had never confiscated a firearm that could be considered an AW. The nationwide use of guns meeting their definition of AW turned out to be around 0.001%.

The antis want a complete gun ban.
 
I agree that a small very vocal minority want a complete ban on private firearms ownership. I don't think that is ever going to happen in the US so don't really fear that group at all. In fact the proliferation of CCW laws indicates that public policy is actually going to other way.

If as gun owners we seem too radical we risk losing all credibility on the issue. If we seem concerned with the same things others are concerned with, but propose a different solution, then we might get some where.

But then I lived in Maine for several years. The hunters and the Audubon society(among other environmental groups) up there formed a pretty powerful alliance to the benifit of all. I am convinced that with education soccer moms are gun owners natural allies.
 
I don't agree that the basic premise was to make gun shops somehow responsible for the use of guns after the sale. There are gun shops and distributers who bend and outright break laws out of greed.
Click to expand...

This indicates a rather profound misunderstanding of the entire campaign to use civil tort actions to either (i) bankrupt the firearms industry (at least that portion of it providing firearms to the civilian market); or, that failing, (ii) coerce a panoply of intrusive and ultimately useless changes in how gun manufacturers design and build their products, and how licensed firearms dealers stock, display and sell them.

There is simply no way to claim with a scintilla of justice that Beretta, Smith & Wesson or Glock are responsible for shootings taking place in cities. There is no way to claim with a scintilla of justice that a licensed dealer who transfers properly and legally a firearm to a customer is then responsible for illegal acts by that customer. Yet that is precisely the premise behind these suits. This was so obvious, even Congress stepped in to put a stop to it. Existing law provides quite sufficiently for your fictive greedy gun dealer.
 
Why is it "politically correct" to say that gun control cuts down violent crimes?

What Giuliani did was two-fold as Mayor. First, he started to increase the number of police (from 32,000 to almost 47,000). Secondly, he enacted what is commonly referred to as the "broken window theory". In essence, that was a refurbishing/renovation of NYC. It consisted of repairing the streets and sidewalks, better street lighting, cleaning up the graffiti, chasing off the homeless people and making business owners/landlords responsible for the appearance of their properties. The NYPD issued tens-of-thousands of "fix-it" citations to those owners/landlords, and they carried the warning of "If YOU don't fix it, WE will AND send YOU the bill!". By making NYC a bit more presentable and half-way decent, it also caused at least some of the criminal element to look for other "cruddy" places to roost! The heavy-handed restrictions on guns had relatively little to lower the crime rate....but, since those restrictions WERE imposed, that's what all of the "politically correct" idiots have focused on!

While Giuliani should be credited for cleaning up NYC, it was the "cleaning up" that was the major element that lowered the crime rate....and that's not just MY opinion, for I've heard many law enforcement experts say the same thing (I believe that Bill Bratton, former NYPD Chief and now LAPD Chief, was one of the first to point out the benefits of that "broken window theory" having been so effective)!
 
Is it your contention Mr James that no firearms distributers are greedy and bend or break laws in order to increase profits? Or is your contention that even if they are greedy and bend or break laws they should not be subjected to legal action because they deal in firearms?

Just because legal action could be used to destroy an industry does not mean that every legal action is being used for that purpose.

I agree with Mike that Guliani's success at fighting crime was really just a side effect of a booming economy. A strong economy can counter a multitude of ills, the whole Clinton presidency is a case study in this. Of course a poor economy can create problems on a scale that nobody can withstand. I think that a lot of Jimmy Carter's problems in a myriad of areas were directly related to bad economic times.
 
I am saying the campaign of lawsuits by mayors of cities across the country was a deliberate and mendacious campaign to cripple the industry and extort concessions from it. That is plain from the record.

Now, I've hijacked enough of the readers' time - back to Rudy and his life-long embrace of the most odious forms of gun control. :p
 
Last edited:
The laws we have now are MORE than enough

The NYC lawsuit was a travesty. Trying to hold Colt or S&W responsible for "gun crimes" is a transparent attack on the gun industry per se. Since tens of thousands of people are are killed in car wrecks every year, why don't we sue Ford and GM?

Colt, S&W, Beretta, et.al. are reputable, responsible manufacturers; but it's my understanding that there is a small group of cheap-gun makers, all owned by the same family (the best known firm of the bunch is Lorcin, IIRC), that have consistently had a remarkable number of guns "stolen", or "missing from inventory", or otherwise unaccounted for, every time their books are examined--on the order of hundreds of missing guns every year, from EVERY firm in the group. It seems the guns are regularly left in unguarded warehouses, where thieves regularly break in and steal them. Hmmm...

This would be unthinkable at, say, the Colt factory.

Now THAT bears investigation, I would think. This information is old--I recall reading about it in some gun mag or other some years ago--but IF that is still going on, and IF it turns out that they have some kind of under-the-table arrangement with a criminal gang or some such, they ought to be shut down and the owners imprisoned. But, as I said, laws already on the books should be sufficient to deal with such a problem.

It should go without saying that responsible gun manufacturers and dealers ought to be left alone; but irresponsible or criminal makers and dealers ought to be shut down permanently. They aren't helping us.
 
Isn't there some validity to the theory that increased enforcement of existing gun laws does actually reduce gun related crime?
Click to expand...

If there is, I haven't found it. Gun laws by and large don't have much effect on crime one way or the other. Every time gun laws are tightened, our side screams about victim disarmament, but crime rates don't change much. Every time gun laws are relaxed, the gungrabbers scream about the coming bloodbath, which never materializes.

There's no question in my mind that Rudy did some smart and effective things to control the crime problem in New York, but enforcing their strict gun control laws was not one of them.
 
There's no question in my mind that Rudy did some smart and effective things to control the crime problem in New York, but enforcing their strict gun control laws was not one of them.
Click to expand...
Then why doesn't HE drop them?
 
Rudy also insisted on going after petty criminals. Stopping a petty criminal today may prevent a murder later. Going through the effort of arresting the petty criminals often resulted in them being off the street instead of commiting worse crimes later. It also sent the message that the NYPD was once again on patrol as opposed to the vacation it took under Dinkins.

Now on guns Rudy is all Big City Liberal Mayor... He has never stated the rules in NYC are to strict. The lawsuits were about making a political statement and lining NYC's cofferrs with cash. Sorry, Rudy is at best an ambivilent anti and at worst an outright anti2A conspirator.
 
Isn't there some validity to the theory that increased enforcement of existing gun laws does actually reduce gun related crime?
Click to expand...

No, there is no validity to that idea.

Both the Centers for Disease Control (1) and the National Academy of Sciences (2) have conducted studies to determine if there is a link between gun control laws, including the enforcement of existing laws, and a reduction in violent crime involving the use of firearms. They were unable to establish any link.


1) “First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws.” Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 3 Oct. 2003. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 8 Aug. 2007:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm


2) Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Committee on Law and Justice. 2004. The National Academies Press.
August 5, 2007:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241
 
I just hope he and Hitlary are on a stage debating something and it gets hit by a meteor or an airplane falling out of the sky. I would really like to be able to go about my everyday life without fear that what I enjoy both as freedom from harm by others be taken away from me by either side. Why does it matter at all whether gun confiscation comes from party A or B, person X or person Y? The result is the same. If we get the "right" person in and the laws get passed anyway, what do you say then? "Oops, sorry, our mistake...we didn't see that coming" ??? NOT GOOD ENOUGH. :mad:
 
In his speech, Rudy started quoting the language of the Amendment "The right of the people to be secure..." and then the phone rang. It's just as well, but he never did get back to quoting the 4th Amendment. So why isn't the NRA pointing out that Rudy is not even on the right page on their one issue? Wishful thinking on the part of the listener is as bad as a lie by the speaker.
 
Forks, there's an actual (OK, so it's completely made up, but it looks darn realistic) transcript of Giuliani's sudden conversation with "his wife" here.

So he confused the language and was going to go quote the 4th Amendment until an AIDE called him--not his wife!

BOTH SIDES OF THE ACTUAL PHONE CALL:

RUDY: Hello dear...

AIDE: You flippin' IDIOT! You just said “the people shall be secure...” That's the 4th Amendment! They want to hear about GUNS! Remember? The SECOND Amendment.

RUDY: I'm talking to the members of the NRA right now.

AIDE: Yeah... the wife thing--Good cover. Now, you need to pick the conversation back up and put it on topic. Cut to the part about the Parker Decision.

RUDY: Would you like to say hello? (He laughs, apparently at something she says.) I love you and I'll give you a call as soon as I'm finished, OK?

AIDE: You don't remember the Parker decision? Damn it! Start on Page 3. Just read the speech and quit ad libbing this thing! You are screwing up, big time!

RUDY: OK, have a safe trip, bye-bye. Talk to you later dear, I love you.
Click to expand...
 
I believe Rudy's statement that he will enforce existing gun laws, and that more gun laws are not needed.

People can change their minds on issues like gun control. I believe that Rudy has changed his mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top