Except Shaker Square of course!!

Speak the truth!  AMEN!!

From wkyc.com:

 

CLEVELAND -- Cleveland finally plans to combine the city's Fire and EMS into one organization.

 

The goal is to provide better services during emergencies.

 

The mayor's plan calls for the integration of E.M.S. and Fire departments.  It's not a merger and it's not a consolidation.

 

"We're taking the skills and the strengths in each of those divisions maximizing that which they do well into one cohesive operation," Safety Director Martin Flask said.

 

More at http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=135810&catid=3

As much as I love Cleveland I feel compelled to share this story.

 

On Saturday I made a rare trip to the Warehouse District to meet up with some friends who were visiting from out of town. On my way home to Lakewood I decided to take the scenic route on Detroit Ave. instead of the Shoreway. While I was passing Now That's Class, one of my very favorite bars, I saw my friend Kristen hanging outside with a bunch of her friends.

 

It was 1:30 am and there were maybe 15-20 people outside Now That's Class enjoying the beautiful weather. I decided to park and have a few drinks with Kristen and her husband Sean. We had a couple of beers and soon enough it was 2am and the owner was announcing last call.

 

I walked with Kristen and Sean for one block west on Detroit toward their car before turning back east toward my car.  I drove home to Lakewood without incident.

 

Well, tonight I just learned that literally seconds after I left my friends, they were confronted by some a-hole at gun point. The guy demanded money. Sean said he didn't have any, but Kristen, wanting this to end quickly, opened her purse and gave the robber everything she had...maybe 200 dollars.

 

Meanwhile, some guy was close by on his front porch, witnessing the whole thing. He lept into action and tried to tackle the robber. That's when the gun started going off. Kristen and Sean fell to the ground, and the good samaritan was grazed in the head by one of the  bullets. The robber fled and wasn't caught.

 

Anyhow, I just wanted to share this story so others can be aware of the dangers that are out there on the near west side. Because I have SEVERAL friends who were also held up at gunpoint over the last year between Steve's Lunch and the Happy Dog, I suppose it was only a matter of time before such an incident happened again. Lets face it, there is some real trashy people living in the vicinity. It's a long long way from being a place I would consider "safe."

 

In fact, I recently spoke to someone who bought a house in Detroit Shoreway and was held up at gunpoint in his own back yard. I don't care how up and coming a neighborhood is...life is way to short to subject yourself to that kind of violence.

 

There are a lot of guys out there who should be in prison, but they just haven't been caught yet. Please, if you're going out there remember to use caution at all times. I won't be hanging out on Detroit Ave. any time soon, at least not while this incident is fresh in my mind. There is absolutely zero police presence in this neighborhood, and I won't patronize businesses in this area until this changes.

 

It pains me to say this, especially since I have a film playing the Capitol theatre next month. I may not even go. I'll be content hanging out in Lakewood, where the possibility of being violently assaulted is far less likely.

 

Again, sorry to report this, but I think it's important enough to share what happened on this forum.

 

Scott

 

 

Sorry to hear that Scott.  That is really unfortunate.  I have been hearing similar stories, and it seems some of this bad element has even been creeping over to Clifton, since Ive also heard of a couple of incidents there. 

 

Thats what I was mentioning in another thread, if Cleveland doesnt step up patrols in these areas, and apply extra effort to keep it from spreading further, the city will be sorry when their "up and coming neighborhoods" stagnate... and the ones north or there that are supposed to be "nice" wont be for much longer. 

That's why i support banning criminals of their citizenship and banish to Yemen or something.

That's why i support banning criminals of their citizenship and banish to Yemen or something.

 

Off the top of my head, I would guess most of the crime that occurs on the streets of Cleveland are by US-born people, not by foreigners--or are you suggesting stripping US-born folks of their citizenship?

 

A far more useful thing to support would be to convince CPD and other parties to get more cops on the street in crime-inflicted areas, particularly those that can help turn the city around (like 65th & Detroit) AND approaches to bring more employment to the city as crime and employment levels are directly correlated.

 

Yes i am. This has been going on long enough. Prison does not helps these guys. Only makes them worse when they get out.

That's horrible that your friends were held up and I hope the good samaritan recuperates. That area along Detroit west to the west 90s has been rough since as long as I can remember (when Now That's Class was Deco); if friends suggest slumming at the Hawk I try to convince them otherwise. And I'm adamant that we don't park on the side streets or anywhere out of the way. A lot of the holdups are by perps who prey on people coming out of the bars at last call.

 

When you say between Steve's Lunch and the Happy Dog...? One is on Lorain at West 50th and the other is Detroit on West 58th... just wanting to understand the context here - not questioning your account or trivializing your concerns. I think the main drag of Detroit by the Capitol is fine when there's a lot of activity (eyes on the street) but the area to the southeast gets sketchy quick. What's also a problem is that a lot of the perps aren't local residents but word gets around that an area has some wealthier visitors - that's quite often the case in Tremont. Not to say there aren't shady types in the immediate area but you get my point. Whatever the case, I agree that there can't be enough of a police presence around these places.

What's also a problem is that a lot of the perps aren't local residents but word gets around that an area has some wealthier visitors - that's quite often the case in Tremont. Not to say there aren't shady types in the immediate area but you get my point.

 

That was very much the case this week in a burglary in Tremont where both criminals were from the Fleet Ave/E.65th nabe... http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/05/cleveland_police_seek_burglary.html

 

Edited to add: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/05/robber_rapist_attacks_woman_in.html

A far more useful thing to support would be to convince CPD and other parties to get more cops on the street in crime-inflicted areas

 

The problem is that even if they catch these guys, a judge will give them a slap on the wrist and put them right back out on the streets.  We're not hard enough on violent criminals in this country.  And I say that as a liberal!

Again, sorry to report this, but I think it's important enough to share what happened on this forum.

 

Thank you for sharing that. 

 

I recommend also sharing it with Mayor Jackson's office and the city councilmen for the near west side.  They're ultimatly responsible for what the police do or don't do. 

Thanks for sharing, surfohio. I have friends who have reported hearing similar stories, and though it's been awhile, some of my friends were held up at gunpoint when doing a play at Cleveland Public Theater.  I agree with you, while the area may be "up and coming," I don't think it's safe enough yet to personally refer people there to live.  If the police in this neighborhood can't get on top of this type of crime, the businesses that are springing up here are not going to make it.

Thanks for sharing, surfohio. I have friends who have reported hearing similar stories, and though it's been awhile, some of my friends were held up at gunpoint when doing a play at Cleveland Public Theater.  I agree with you, while the area may be "up and coming," I don't think it's safe enough yet to personally refer people there to live.  If the police in this neighborhood can't get on top of this type of crime, the businesses that are springing up here are not going to make it.

 

I agree that Detroit-Shoreway still has a ways to go, but Detroit is a LOT different from W. 85th to W. 116th than it is in the Gordon Square area.

Right. re: Detroit and Lorain, it was just in a "west side" context. Sorry that probably wasn't clear.  I specifically mentioned Steve's Lunch and Happy Dog in particular because that's where friends of mine have had guns put to their heads. Both incidents were very late at night, I should add.

 

Good points MayDay. But I'm worried about the businesses in and near these neighborhoods. They are some of my favorite places in the world, and now I have second thoughts about heading out there at night. A bad rep is very hard to shake. We all know how the perception of the Flats went south when the masses, rightly or wrongly, perceived the area as unsafe.

 

 

 

When you say between Steve's Lunch and the Happy Dog...? One is on Lorain at West 50th and the other is Detroit on West 58th... just wanting to understand the context here - not questioning your account or trivializing your concerns. I think the main drag of Detroit by the Capitol is fine when there's a lot of activity (eyes on the street) but the area to the southeast gets sketchy quick. What's also a problem is that a lot of the perps aren't local residents but word gets around that an area has some wealthier visitors - that's quite often the case in Tremont. Not to say there aren't shady types in the immediate area but you get my point. Whatever the case, I agree that there can't be enough of a police presence around these places.

Neighborhood watch groups are needed IMO for these "up and coming" neighborhoods.  The City simply can't determine which neighborhoods need increased patrol and, consequently, the diversion of extra resources because they may be considered "up and coming".  Private businesses can make those types of decisions, not public entities.  If the City stepped up the patrol in this area, they would have to take away from the patrols in another area.  Gun-point incidents happen on Kinsman, MLK, etc. too.  The cops can't discriminate based on which neighborhood, true or not, would be best for the City if it was safer.  That is why the DCA is such a good idea.  It focuses on downtown and gives that street presence the City doesn't have the manpower to put in uniform on the downtown streets.

Surf... sorry to hear that story, it is extremely unfortunate and please don't ever hesitate to post such things, its the reality of the situation.

 

A couple things... First, DSCDO is very close to getting a SID off the ground, they have been working on it for some time.  Secondly, let's make sure we understand this.  The Near West Side, including OC, Tremont, and DS IS an "up and coming" neighborhood.  That is the basic code word for "transitioning", which at its very core means that this was once a less desireable area with problems and that it is changing for the better.  This situation and this story are not unique to the Detroit Shoreway, the near west side of Cleveland, or the City of Cleveland.  These things, most unfortunately, happen in cities all over the country.  Willyboy was just commenting the other day about how some of the "up and coming" neighborhoods in DC have people buying $800k homes, and getting robbed right in front of them.

 

The bottom line is you don't have to be scared, but you do need to be cognisant of what is going on and where you are at.  I feel COMPLETELY comfortable in DS.  Of course my wife's best friend was raised around the corner from Gordon Square, and I have become quite good friends with their family over the years (they are actually primarily responsible for turning me into the city nut job I am today).  when I first started going to that area 10+ years ago, it was a rather terrifying place.  I can not even begin to describe the turnaround to you.  Unless you've watched the progress it really is hard to fathom.  I wonder how they did it, raising 2 kids in the area they are (considering what the area was 20 years before I started coming around).  But they did, they raised 2 of the best people I know... I am completely comfortable in the area because I'm armed with a lot of knowledge.  what streets and areas to avoid, the better areas to be at later in the night, etc.  And certainly I would allow myself to have an extra drink or two on a place like east 4th as opposed to a near west establishment.

 

So again, I don't think anyone needs to "avoid" these areas or their businesses, or living here.  You just have to understand where you are and what you are doing.  Because it IS a transitioning / up and coming / gentrifying area that still does have some crime issues.  Again this is not unlike any such area in the country.  And like most of these locations the people willing to be the "pioneers" of such an area understand there is a certain element of risk that comes with living in such an area... but that the payoff can be tremendous (not talking $$, though that can happen too).

 

And one last note... I would consider anything on the main drag of detroit in gordon square (aprox from 58th to 73rd) to be as safe at this point as just about anywhere else you would go. And Hts... I agree completely about the police predicament.

I know a lot of people have huge misconceptions about them and until they become fully informed as to what they are really all about....the comments that have them made out to be head bashing vigilantes that will draw a negative image will be out of ignorance---But, The Guardian Angels are emerging in Cleveland and do patrols at hours when problems may likely occur. Their visual presence does 90% of the trick. They are worldwide and have organizations in many world class cities.

 

They are like a block watch on steroids, engage neighbors and make more connections---as well as educate neighbors how to get involved to make the neighborhood safer and remain perfectly anonymous. We invited the regional leader, who is a news anchor in Toledo (Aaron Brielbeck) to speak at a Franklin/Clinton Block Club and after he spoke, he cleared up the misconceptions and those who were skeptical about them now welcomed their participation. Police mostly welcome it too, because they can be of great help to police. Eyes on the streets is a key they promote.

 

I was impressed and even considered getting the in-depth training to join. They do not accept just anyone.

 

Scott.. a compelling story... So very aggravating and disappointing. If you want, maybe it would be a good idea to report this to the Cleveland Chapter of the Guardians. They will patrol areas where residents speak up about such things. If you want the number to the contact, PM me.

"There are a lot of guys out there who should be in prison, but they just haven't been caught yet. "

 

I am sorry to say that you are wrong.  I will bet my last dollar that the animal that did this has a rap sheet a mile long and has done things like this before.  The only solution for people who have demonstrated their inability to live in a free society is permanent incarceration.  Give them everything, TV, hookers, whatever, but get them into human warehouses as soon as possible and keep them there.  I do not understand a society that will not fulfil its first public obligation, segregation of criminals.  Even primitive societies understand this.  If you don't think this is realistic look at those states that have "three strikes and your out" laws.  Washington state does and it has made a serious dent in violent crime.  I could get into the motivations for why some people prefer the present system which victimizes the law abiding citizen, struggling neighborhoods, etc. but I can't find my tin foil hat right now.

 

Incarceration may cost more, but its worth it!

If more people carried guns, perhaps thugs would be less likely to take their chances in such circumstances. 

McCleveland

 

I am completely comfortable in the area because I'm armed with a lot of knowledge. what streets and areas to avoid, the better areas to be at later in the night, etc.

 

I moved into the neighborhood in the fall of last year....would you please share this knowledge.  PM me if you don't feel comfortable posting.

 

I agree with tedolph on a post!  A momentous occasion! :)

 

We're way too soft on violent crime.  I don't think you should even get three strikes.

If more people carried guns, perhaps thugs would be less likely to take their chances in such circumstances. 

 

Lots of concealed carry permits in Detroit.  Don't get me wrong, things would certainly be worse if Detroiters couldn't arm themselves but the real solution is to put animals in a cage, permanently. 

I agree with tedolph on a post! A momentous occasion! :)

 

We're way too soft on violent crime. I don't think you should even get three strikes.

 

It is not really about being "soft".  It has a lot more to do with resources.  The costs of incarceration are staggering.  We don't have the money to lay the smack down on every criminal, which leads lighter sentences and early releases.  If you want the courts to get tougher in the sentencing, you better not be one to oppose tax increases.

If more people carried guns, perhaps thugs would be less likely to take their chances in such circumstances.

 

Lots of concealed carry permits in Detroit. Don't get me wrong, things would certainly be worse if Detroiters couldn't arm themselves but the real solution is to put animals in a cage, permanently.  

 

Agree.  I don't know why so many people think shootouts are the answer.  Even if everyone was armed, the perpetrated still has a huge leg up by pulling his weapon first.

I agree with tedolph on a post! A momentous occasion! :)

 

We're way too soft on violent crime. I don't think you should even get three strikes.

 

It is not really about being "soft". It has a lot more to do with resources. The costs of incarceration are staggering. We don't have the money to lay the smack down on every criminal, which leads lighter sentences and early releases. If you want the courts to get tougher in the sentencing, you better not be one to oppose tax increases.

 

The threat of stiff consequences are often enough to keep people straight.

We already have the "threat" of stiff consequences.  For instance, did you know that entering into a sham marriage for immigration purposes carries with it the potential for 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine?  It doesn't seem to stop people.  We have the death penalty here in Ohio, yet people continue to commit pre-meditated murder.  As a matter of fact, states with the death penalty do not see any significant drop in crimes which would warrant capital punishment as compared to states that do not have the death penalty.

I agree with tedolph on a post! A momentous occasion! :)

 

We're way too soft on violent crime. I don't think you should even get three strikes.

 

It is not really about being "soft". It has a lot more to do with resources. The costs of incarceration are staggering. We don't have the money to lay the smack down on every criminal, which leads lighter sentences and early releases. If you want the courts to get tougher in the sentencing, you better not be one to oppose tax increases.

 

The threat of stiff consequences are often enough to keep people straight.

 

I disagree.  I think the punishments should be designed to keep proven criminals out of society so they can't continue to do harm.

 

As to Hts121's post:

 

(1) I am a liberal, I love to tax and spend! :)

 

(2) We could always spend a little less on prisoners.  In my opinion, they aren't deserving of much more than the bare minimum to keep them alive.  And then there's people that believe in the death penalty.  Either way you view it, we should not be spending too much on people in prison for life.

I agree with tedolph on a post!  A momentous occasion! :)

 

We're way too soft on violent crime.  I don't think you should even get three strikes.

 

It is not really about being "soft".  It has a lot more to do with resources.  The costs of incarceration are staggering.  We don't have the money to lay the smack down on every criminal, which leads lighter sentences and early releases.  If you want the courts to get tougher in the sentencing, you better not be one to oppose tax increases.

 

The threat of stiff consequences are often enough to keep people straight.

 

I disagree.  I think the punishments should be designed to keep proven criminals out of society so they can't continue to do harm.

 

As to Hts121's post:

 

(1) I am a liberal, I love to tax and spend! :)

 

(2) We could always spend a little less on prisoners.  In my opinion, they aren't deserving of much more than the bare minimum to keep them alive.  And then there's people that believe in the death penalty.  Either way you view it, we should not be spending too much on people in prison for life.

 

I'm right with you.  Although I think US prisons should be run like foriegn prisons where the prisoners have no rights. 

We already have the "threat" of stiff consequences.  For instance, did you know that entering into a sham marriage for immigration purposes carries with it the potential for 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine?  It doesn't seem to stop people.  We have the death penalty here in Ohio, yet people continue to commit pre-meditated murder.  As a matter of fact, states with the death penalty do not see any significant drop in crimes which would warrant capital punishment as compared to states that do not have the death penalty.

 

 

You are correct.  Threat of punishment is not a deterrent to A-hole idiots, no matter how stiff the penalty.  That is why animals need to be permanently incarcerated.  That way they only get to commit one (or three) crimes.  Thus, permanent incarceration is a deterrent.  It deters a criminal from committing a crime if he is incarcerated.

 

Here is the dirty little secret.  90% of the crimes are commit ed by 9% of the criminals.  Permanently incarcerate those 9% and 90% of the crime goes away. 

 

Also, make the prisons as appealing as possible.  Make it a place A-hole idiots want to go to, and stay in! Eliminate parole, eliminate time off for good behaviour, add on time for bad behaviour.  If you think this is not possible, please be advised that the Sup. Ct. with all its commie liberals just ruled that states can keep perverts incarcerated beyond their sentence if they are a danger to the community. 

Well, I don't think the food, clothes or living conditions we spend on prisoners are the real issue.  It is not like they are getting five-star meals and pillow top mattreses.  It is more the operational costs for the facility that are the main drag on resources I would assume.  Salaries and bills have to be paid.  More personnel need to be hired with increased prison populations.  Those expenses extrapolate when you add in benefits and other associated costs (ovetime, workers comp, disability, pension funds, health care, etc.)  Equipment is needed to control the prison population and specialized units need to be on stand-by (such as the riot squad).

 

I personally wish we could 'throw away the key' on violent offenders, but the people paying the bills (the citizens) seem to disagree when they vote with their own personal savings account as the top priority.

Well, I don't think the food, clothes or living conditions we spend on prisoners are the real issue. It is not like they are getting five-star meals and pillow top mattreses. It is more the operational costs for the facility that are the main drag on resources I would assume. Salaries and bills have to be paid. More personnel need to be hired with increased prison populations. Those expenses extrapolate when you add in benefits and other associated costs (ovetime, workers comp, disability, pension funds, health care, etc.) Equipment is needed to control the prison population and specialized units need to be on stand-by (such as the riot squad).

 

I personally wish we could 'throw away the key' on violent offenders, but the people paying the bills (the citizens) seem to disagree when they vote with their own personal savings account as the top priority.

 

Actually, the citizens are never given a chance to vote on "prisons".  The legislature plays that card close to their vest becase they know the citizens would vote overwhelmingly for massive prision construction and then there would be no excuse for letting animals go free. 

We wouldn't need to build more prisons if we stopped with the fruitless War on Drugs.  If there is no room in jail for real criminals (the ones committing violent crimes against others), then perhaps we're doing things wrong, because our incarceration rate is still much higher than every other country in the Western world, I think.

the Sup. Ct. with all its commie liberals

 

What an awful thing to say about Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito ;)

We already have the "threat" of stiff consequences. For instance, did you know that entering into a sham marriage for immigration purposes carries with it the potential for 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine? It doesn't seem to stop people. We have the death penalty here in Ohio, yet people continue to commit pre-meditated murder. As a matter of fact, states with the death penalty do not see any significant drop in crimes which would warrant capital punishment as compared to states that do not have the death penalty.

 

Perhaps its a combination of having the stiff consequences and executing said consequences.

 

The stat about $ of crimes committed by the % of criminals is right on.  I don't think there should be any fluxuation in sentencing.  It should be just like reading a chart.

I agree with tedolph on a post! A momentous occasion! :)

 

We're way too soft on violent crime. I don't think you should even get three strikes.

 

It is not really about being "soft". It has a lot more to do with resources. The costs of incarceration are staggering. We don't have the money to lay the smack down on every criminal, which leads lighter sentences and early releases. If you want the courts to get tougher in the sentencing, you better not be one to oppose tax increases.

 

The threat of stiff consequences are often enough to keep people straight.

 

I disagree. I think the punishments should be designed to keep proven criminals out of society so they can't continue to do harm.

 

As to Hts121's post:

 

(1) I am a liberal, I love to tax and spend! :)

 

(2) We could always spend a little less on prisoners. In my opinion, they aren't deserving of much more than the bare minimum to keep them alive. And then there's people that believe in the death penalty. Either way you view it, we should not be spending too much on people in prison for life.

 

I'm right with you. Although I think US prisons should be run like foriegn prisons where the prisoners have no rights.

 

Couldn't agree more

If they had "no rights"... then wouldn't brutality be an issue?  Would they not be entitled to 3 meals a day?  Or a bed to sleep on?  Or basic sanitary conditions in their cells?

 

My point is, they should and do suffer a significant diminishment in their rights, but you can't provide them with "no rights".  Further, the worse the crime, the more their rights diminish with increased levels of security.

If they had "no rights"... then wouldn't brutality be an issue?  Would they not be entitled to 3 meals a day?  Or a bed to sleep on?  Or basic sanitary conditions in their cells?

 

My point is, they should and do suffer a significant diminishment in their rights, but you can't provide them with "no rights".  Further, the worse the crime, the more their rights diminish with increased levels of security.

 

I dont think prisoners should have rights period!  You've been convicted of a crime.  You're just a number.  Prison should be contolled hard labor.  It shouldn't be a day at the country club.  You shouldn't have a gym or lawn; You shouldn't be educated on my dime;  You shouldn't have visitors and you should not be comfortable.  Especially white collar criminals!

 

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!

If more people carried guns, perhaps thugs would be less likely to take their chances in such circumstances. 

 

I can only envision the kind of scene this would make. This is the Archie Bunker argument.

If more people carried guns, perhaps thugs would be less likely to take their chances in such circumstances. 

 

Lots of concealed carry permits in Detroit.  Don't get me wrong, things would certainly be worse if Detroiters couldn't arm themselves but the real solution is to put animals in a cage, permanently. 

 

You're insulting the civilized animals... They don't behave like the human uncivilized animals!  :lol:

If they had "no rights"... then wouldn't brutality be an issue? Would they not be entitled to 3 meals a day? Or a bed to sleep on? Or basic sanitary conditions in their cells?

 

My point is, they should and do suffer a significant diminishment in their rights, but you can't provide them with "no rights". Further, the worse the crime, the more their rights diminish with increased levels of security.

 

I dont think prisoners should have rights period! You've been convicted of a crime. You're just a number.   Prison should be contolled hard labor. It shouldn't be a day at the country club. You shouldn't have a gym or lawn; You shouldn't be educated on my dime; You shouldn't have visitors and you should not be comfortable. Especially white collar criminals!

 

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!

 

Imagine Raymond Towler's life over the past few decades if your preferences were reality.  Seriously though, we have the 8th Amendment to prevent the types of conditions you see in certain places overseas.

If they had "no rights"... then wouldn't brutality be an issue?  Would they not be entitled to 3 meals a day?  Or a bed to sleep on?  Or basic sanitary conditions in their cells?

 

My point is, they should and do suffer a significant diminishment in their rights, but you can't provide them with "no rights".  Further, the worse the crime, the more their rights diminish with increased levels of security.

 

I dont think prisoners should have rights period!  You've been convicted of a crime.  You're just a number.  Prison should be contolled hard labor.  It shouldn't be a day at the country club.  You shouldn't have a gym or lawn; You shouldn't be educated on my dime;  You shouldn't have visitors and you should not be comfortable.  Especially white collar criminals!

 

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!

 

Imagine Raymond Towler's life over the past few decades if your preferences were reality.  Seriously though, we have the 8th Amendment to prevent the types of conditions you see in certain places overseas.

 

IIRC, he was wrongly convicted and DNA proved his case. He's an exception.  However, if prisons were as bad as they could be, who would commit crimes?!

 

I say make the convicted suffer and treat them worse than slaves or a war camp.  Have them out on chain gangs paving roads, clean up rail road tracks, etc. so we can see some ROI on our investment as described above.  No TV, phone, access to outside society.  No priveledges.  You're a number, period.  You should have to wear a branded letter on your body.

 

If you are a contributing member of society, you wouldn't have no need to worry about prison. 

 

No system is perfect.

Maybe I should have been a prison warden instead of Creative suit.  :wtf:

If more people carried guns, perhaps thugs would be less likely to take their chances in such circumstances. 

 

I can only envision the kind of scene this would make. This is the Archie Bunker argument.

 

:roll:

 

I'm not advocating Wild West-type shootouts.  However a criminal is less likely to mess with you if they believe there's a chance that you could be packing.

 

The police do a great job, but they can't be everywhere at once to protect all citizens.  You have to be prepared to defend yourself against the bands of thugs that have taken over large swaths of Greater Cleveland and other major metropolitan areas.

If more people carried guns, perhaps thugs would be less likely to take their chances in such circumstances. 

 

I can only envision the kind of scene this would make. This is the Archie Bunker argument.

 

:roll:

 

I'm not advocating Wild West-type shootouts.  However a criminal is less likely to mess with you if they believe there's a chance that you could be packing.

 

The police do a great job, but they can't be everywhere at once to protect all citizens.  You have to be prepared to defend yourself against the bands of thugs that have taken over large swaths of Greater Cleveland and other major metropolitan areas.

 

So when do you pull the gun?  You usually don't know you're getting robbed until it's too late to pull the gun out. And if you reach for it, that's a Wild West Shootout you're going to lose 99% of the time.  I don't know the solution, but I don't think "defending yourself" works quite the way concealed carry advocates claim it does.  This isn't like war, where enemies are clearly distinguished and you're ready to shoot at all times before the other guy does.

Depending on the situation, you may not have to draw.  You can just shoot him through your coat.  And part of the "everyone's packing" concept is deterrent... facing the death penalty isn't the same as facing immediate doom.  Part of the concept is also that it isn't necessarily the victim who shoots.  You might think twice about assailing a group if ALL of them could shoot you, as well as that guy on the porch. 

 

Sound like wild west?  Yeah, a bit too much for me.  I'd prefer better policing.  There are several bars & clubs on that stretch of Detroit Ave.  A cop should always be there, period.  It isn't that hard to determine what areas to guard at what times.  If there aren't enough of them... everyone on daytime "mobile speed camera" detail should be reassigned to nightlife protection.  I'm tempted to say the same for downtown's horsey division.

That's right, the idea is deterrent.  The criminals are always going to have access to weapons, that cat is out of the bag unfortunately.  Either we can let them run wild and hope that the cops (who are outnumbered greatly) can stop them all, or we can be proactive.

They called it the "Wild, Wild" West for a reason.  Everyone was armed yet criminals were not deterred.

Yet everyone wonders why people in Little Italy are so abrasive towards outsiders

They called it the "Wild, Wild" West for a reason. Everyone was armed yet criminals were not deterred.

 

In Kennesaw, GA citizens are required to carry a gun and apparently have not had a murder there for some time (25 years as of 2007) and crime has dropped. Personally, I think a small town like Kennesaw isn't a fair assessment on gun law consequences and extrapolating the effects to a city like Cleveland isn't exactly fair. But your comment made me think of that town.

 

I'm of the belief that the city should really focus on crime first and foremost over any other service (including education, roads, etc..). If you can make the city safe first the other things will come. I also agree with Clevelander17, legalize drugs so the police can focus on violent offenders.

They called it the "Wild, Wild" West for a reason. Everyone was armed yet criminals were not deterred.

 

In Kennesaw, GA citizens are required to carry a gun and apparently have not had a murder there for some time (25 years as of 2007) and crime has dropped. Personally, I think a small town like Kennesaw isn't a fair assessment on gun law consequences and extrapolating the effects to a city like Cleveland isn't exactly fair. But your comment made me think of that town.

 

I'm of the belief that the city should really focus on crime first and foremost over any other service (including education, roads, etc..). If you can make the city safe first the other things will come. I also agree with Clevelander17, legalize drugs so the police can focus on violent offenders.

 

There are plenty of wealthy suburbs which have not seen a murder for many years. And as it turns out, Kennesaw is now not one of them. From January of this year:

 

Three Confirmed Dead Following Shooting at Penske Truck Rental Store in Kennesaw, Georgia

 

I was interested in finding out more, so I found an article with the following quote:

 

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) [1981] than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

 

Now, it would really be interesting to find out the effects of such a law, but claims such as this are extremely shoddy research. Kennesaw went from a rather poor cow town to a boom suburb of the symbol of wealth and prosperity in the South, of course the crime rate dropped significantly. It's irresponsible to draw the conclusion that this was in any way correlated to the gun law.

 

It pains me to say this, especially since I have a film playing the Capitol theatre next month. I may not even go. I'll be content hanging out in Lakewood, where the possibility of being violently assaulted is far less likely.

 

 

Not to downplay this incident, but isn't the shootout that occured in Lakewood last weekend just as troubling?