Cleveland is hopelessly addicted to the fallacy of gun control...

[spin]

Wednesday, 13 October 2010 08:52

The Ohio Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments in the case of City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio. The outcome will determine whether Ohio's cities can enact firearms restrictions above and beyond existing state law. If the State of Ohio prevails, gun laws will remain uniform throughout the state. If Cleveland prevails, municipalities will be free to create a patchwork of conflicting ordinances that could turn law-abiding gun owners into felons as they simply drive from one township to the next.

***snip***

consider these points:

1. America's large cities are the nation’s fountainhead of crime and social deterioration. Mayors and city councils are the primary front-line tacticians charged with controlling and fixing this problem.
2. The problem likely requires complex, long-term remediation, involving profound changes in the criminal justice system, public schools, and other major institutions.
3. In the meantime, mayors and city councils appear incompetent and ineffective.
4. To create the immediate appearance of competence and effectiveness, politicians in charge of large cities must substantially divert the public's attention from #2 above to a substitute issue they claim is the "real problem" and on which they seem up to the task. This decoy issue is “gun control.” Note: The decoy requires its sponsors to constantly ignore or deny decades of scientific inquiry which have established that law-abiding armed citizens reduce crime. (See More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, 3rd edition, by John Lott.)
5. Nevertheless, experienced city politicians employ this decoy argument as a permanent cover story: They can forever claim that their tireless effort to control guns (despite that darn Constitution) bestows the mantle of heroic leadership, while their inability to control guns (that darn Constitution) certifies their blamelessness for deteriorating cities.

And that brings us back to Cleveland.

The city must fight for its own firearms laws because its leaders are intractably immersed in — and hopelessly addicted to — the red-herring fallacy of gun control. For Cleveland and cities like it, this was nearly inevitable. Hollywood filmmakers for decades have spuriously portrayed guns as archetypal tools of evil — a Lotto jackpot for city politicians. Harnessing the awesome power of a pervasive pop-culture stereotype, mayors and city councils have found it more expedient to manipulate public sentiment with Hollywood-inspired gun anxiety than to create a cogent plan for the restoration of order and safety in their cities. As Oscar Wilde observed, life imitates art more than art imitates life.
http://www.ohioccw.org/201010134902/cleveland-is-hopelessly-addicted-to-the-falacy-of-gun-control.html

Cleveland defends its gun laws before Ohio Supreme Court
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 02:53 AM

In an effort to maintain some local gun restrictions, Cleveland officials went to the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday to defend the city's assault-weapons ban and registration requirement for handguns.

Cleveland officials said their local regulations would not violate a 2007 state law that attempted to establish a uniform set of rules governing gun ownership in Ohio.

"Really what this law is trying to do is take Cleveland out of the business of regulating for the safety and welfare of its own citizens," Gary Singletary, Cleveland's assistant law director, told the justices.

***snip***

Gun-rights advocates said yesterday that they expect the Supreme Court to rule the other way.

"Cleveland, instead of spending time and money and resources on the very real crime problem they have, is wasting their resources going after law-abiding citizens," said Jim Irvine, head of the Buckeye Firearms Association.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/10/13/cleveland-defends-its-gun-laws.html?sid=101

Cleveland fights for its gun laws before top Ohio court
Published: Tuesday, October 12, 2010, 6:06 PM Updated: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 7:18 AM

The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments in a case pitting the city against the state. The city is fighting to govern its residents with its own set of rules rather than those imposed by an Ohio statute.

Ohio's constitution allows cities to exercise "home rule" to enforce policing ordinances as long as those local rules do not infringe on state "general" laws, which are considered the unquestioned rule of the land.

***snip***

Cleveland has argued that its crime troubles are more severe than in other parts of the state, so gun control rules that apply in rural areas, for example, where crime isn't as much of a worry, should not equally apply in a big city.

"Really, what this law is attempting to do is take away the city's rights to regulate the safety of its residents," Singletary said.

***snip***

Cleveland has about a half dozen firearm provisions that are stricter than the state law. For example, every firearm in the city must be registered, no one can openly carry a gun and assault rifles and shotguns are banned -- all of which run contrary to Ohio's uniform gun law.
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/10/cleveland_fights_for_its_gun_l.html

[benEzra]

1. They are in court defending a ban on modern-looking rifles,

when only two rifles were used in homicides in the ENTIRE STATE OF OHIO in 2009.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

There were 502 reported murders in the entire state of Ohio in 2009; all styles of rifles COMBINED accounted for 2 of them. Yes, two.

And Cleveland is trying to say that modern-looking rifles are a terrible crime problem?

[shadowrider]

2. Repeat a lie often enough yada yada yada n/t

[oneshooter]

4. Must....believe ....in the.....YADA!!!!! n/t

[shadowrider]

5. Da YADA rulz dude n/t

[spin]

3. It does look like Cleveland's government is trying to divert attention ...

from their failure to control crime by blaming it on the fact that they can't enforce their own gun laws in their community.

It's an old tried and true tactic that has worked well in the past. The problem is that urban areas such as Chicago and Washington D.C. with draconian gun laws still have a high crime rate.

You can regulate the hell out of the right of honest people to own firearms and accomplish little to drop the crime rate. Honest people and the firearms that they own are not the lion's share of the problem, criminals and criminal gangs are.

As you point out, banning assault weapons and shotguns in Cleveland does little or nothing. I would suspect the requirement to register firearms is a prelude to banning selected weapons (for example any semi-auto firearms).

When faced with a problem, a politician can actually attempt to solve it or he can make it look as though he is trying. From the politician's view, the object is not to solve the problem but to get reelected. Real solutions can be budget busters and take time. Restricting and banning firearms is fairly cheap and gets good media reviews from the press who hate firearms.

I am not saying that allowing the residents of Cleveland to enjoy the same rights as other state residents will solve the crime problem. Citizens are not police or vigilantes. But standardizing laws all over the state stops confusion and allows citizens with concealed carry permits to deal with fewer laws while traveling. It would also allow the residents of Cleveland a better choice for self defense. The article at http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/10/cleveland_fights_for_its_gun_l.html mentions that shotguns are banned. I was unable to verify this. But if true, one of the best home defense weapons is not available to residents of Cleveland.

[SteveM]

6. Yeah, and marijuans is ten times stronger, now!!! Something like that...

Whether on the "Left" or "Right," the Scarlet Letter WILL be invoked as the cause of evil and degradation. It is just so sad that even at this late date, some big, rust belt city mayor is trying to crank up this fear machine again.

I speculate that many of the thugs who wield weapons illegally have increasingly powerful connections within some city bureaucracies, if for no other reason that a family (from which a thug sprang forth) is supportive of the current regime; so feed 'em a little prohibition. More cynically, gun "prohibitions" may further enable the thug to do his business without fear of "competition."

[spin]

7. Sounds like Al Capone's Chicago to me. (n/t)