In Wake Of Officer Figoski Murder, Mayor Reveals Online Probe Findings

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Reeling from the tragic death of Officer Peter Figoski, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched into an angry rant aimed at Congress and President Barack Obama on Wednesday.

As the officer’s family released new images of Figoski with his four daughters, the mayor said more needs to be done to stop criminals from obtaining guns like the one that killed the dedicated officer and devoted father, reports CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer.

Bloomberg has often attacked President Obama and Congress for not doing enough to stop the flow of illegal guns, but the cold-blooded killing of Officer Figoski seems to have given him new intensity.

“Maybe if you, you meaning every one of the people in America, including me, calls our congressman and calls our senators and calls the president and says ‘we’re not going to take it any more. You damn well better do something,’ we are not going to have any more Peter Figoskis,” Bloomberg said.

1010 WINS’ Stan Brooks with more on the story

The mayor, whose staff was able to purchase illegal guns on Craigslist, including an illegal Ruger P95 9 millimeter, like the one that killed Officer Figoski, had a suggestion about how to get Congress to move.

“Maybe you show a picture of Peter Figoski with his daughters,” Bloomberg said.

The investigation targeted 125 gun dealers in 14 states. Seventy-seven of the sellers investigated agreed to sell guns to buyers who could not pass a background check. Private dealers are not required to conduct background checks prior to a sale, but it is illegal for them to sell firearms to anyone that they believe would not pass one.

The mayor didn’t stop there. He also excoriated the judges who at various times let out the five men allegedly involved in the Figoski killing, even though their criminal resumes are littered  with muggings, larcenies, drug possession and trespassing

Lamont Pride, the man who allegedly shot the cop, was wanted in North Carolina for another shooting.

“The reason he was not behind bars the last time was that a judge here in New York not only didn’t put him behind bars, he didn’t even think it was appropriate for bail and he had a long history of not showing up,” Bloomberg said.

Now, that judge, Evelyn LaPorte, who is widely respected among attorneys and known to be fair, has become part of the story.

CBS 2’s Derricke Dennis tried to get a comment from her on Wednesday night, but was unsuccessful. There was no answer at her Brooklyn apartment.

But a court transcript from her arraignment of Pride on a misdemeanor drug arrest in Coney Island last month shows how she refused to hold him by setting bail.

Prosecutor: “Lamont Pride has an outstanding warrant in North Carolina for a shooting.

Judge LaPorte: “What happened in North Carolina?”

Prosecutor: “Lamont Pride was involved in a shooting.”

Judge LaPorte: “People, are you asking for bail?”

Prosecutor: “Yes… for defendant Pride, $2,500. He has an active bench warrant from North Carolina. He also has a prior New York warrant with a North Carolina record.”

Judge LaPorte: “And anything recovered from Pride, Lamont?”

Prosecutor: “Nothing.”

Judge LaPorte: “I’m not going to set bail on any of these two people.”

Bloomberg said he thinks the judge made a huge mistake.

“If you’re talking about somebody who the rap sheet in front of you shows is a potentially dangerous person, has a gun, has a criminal history, common sense says don’t let him out.”

“We shouldn’t have to wait for the assassination of a president or the killing of a police officer to dismantle a conduit bringing illicit guns into this city,” NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly added.

But New York defense attorney Stuart Slotnick knows Judge LaPorte and said she had no way of predicting Pride’s future.

“The judge is fair, and she’s well regarded, and this is an awful situation and an awful tragedy,” Slotnick told CBS 2’s Dennis. “You know there are a lot of bad guys that go through the criminal justice system and it’s impossible to tell which bad guys are gonna do really bad things.”

The mayor asked New Yorkers to keep Officer Figoski in their prayers and he pointed out that people are killed by illegal guns in every state and every city.

Since Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King were killed in 1968, there have been more than 400,000 people killed with illegal guns — more than were killed in World War II.

Do you think the mayor is right? Leave your thoughts below…

Comments (127)
  1. Rodin says:

    Give it up. Dead horse. Move on. Old story. No news. Waste of time.

    Trying to find another story to comment on so I can delete this thread but there’s nothing out there worth commenting on.

    America is a violent society, probably the most violent, self destructive modern society. No more need be said.

    Go to bed.

  2. Keven says:

    Forget it folks. The only way you’ll get these foolish people to give up their “rights” is to pry their gun from the cold dead hands of their children
    rights = kill people

    1. The Truth says:

      I grew up on a farm. I and all of my friends were shooting guns by the time we were 8 years old. Oddly enough – none of my farm friends who had been raised with knowlege of guns shot themselves accidentally (or otherwise). I remember a couple city kids who got a hold of a gun and ended up shooting themselves – but the farm kids had more sense in this regard.

      Being raised on a farm, my parents taught me gun safety & if I handled a weapon carelessly – I would have been punished swiftly. The parents in both cases should definitely have kept their guns locked up and taught their kids gun safety.

      Unfortunately,today people think of teaching a kid how to handle a gun as outrageous behavior.

      I’m sorry to hear that two families lost their children, but the facts you’re trying so hard to ignore are that children are far more likely to die from falls, drowning, car accidents, poisoning, burns, and complications from medical procedures:

      Where’s your outrage at swimming pool owners? Where’s your outrage at people who don’t keep their medicines locked up? Wheres your outrage at people who don’t drive safely?

      1. Richard says:

        You’re turning this into an either/or argument; and some of your logic escapes me. Even if it’s true that more children die from other accidents than from guns, that does not justify guns or excuse gun accidents, does it? And your pastoral/bucolic experience with guns is hardly what gun opponents are thinking of when they call for stricter gun control laws! I doubt if there’s anyone on the side of gun control who would be unwilling to compromise on this issue, such as allowing basic hand guns (not automatics, no clips, etc.), hunting rifles, etc. That seems to me a fair compromise.

        Unfortunately one’s opponents, that is, gun advocates, mystify the debate with audacious appeals to the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment , constitutional rights, and what not, until the issue of guns is deviously linked to constitutional rights and, ultimately, to human rights! In short, the right to own a gun is simply another human right, like the right to property, life, liberty, and happiness.

        The problem is not as difficult to resolve as may seem. It’s the old carrot and stick paradigm. When the carrot the gun lobby hangs in front of political candidates is countered by the stick wielded by a vocal franchise opposed to promiscuous sale or availability of guns, things will change. Right now, the gun lobby is the one with the carrot; the franchise opposed to promiscuous gun ownership must now wield its stick: “Look, you may get the support of the gun lobby and its voters, but we guarantee you, you will lose our far greater number of votes.”

  3. SAM says:

    OK, I’m not saying there isn’t a problem. But talk about over sensationalizing an article. Comparing 400,000 people killed over a 32 year period (that’s 34 people a day) to WWII’s 416,800 over a 4 year period (that’s 285.5 people a day) is a little unrealistic. The biggest thing is, tougher gun laws will do nothing to slow or stop the illegal gun problem in this coutnry. They are illegal guns for a reason..they were not obtained by lawful citizens. These tougher gun laws only hamper an lawful citizens right to buy realistic guns, and I’m not talking fully automatic machine guns and oozies here, I’m refering to handguns, rifles and shotguns.

  4. jason davis says:

    Do they really think making guns illegal is the answer? Like some criminal is gonna say…well damn, its illegal for me to have a pistol…guess Ill just point my finger at them….stupid liberals….

    1. Richard says:

      Do you really think calling people stupid is the answer? And what makes you think “liberals” are behind it? And Blloomberg, in the text quoted, advises to make it more difficult to allow criminals to have access to guns. Nothing is a 100% answer, is it? Reducing the speed limits is bound to have an effect on autovehicle accidents, isn’t it? Reducing championship fights from 15 to 12 rounds will have an effect on ring deaths, won’t it? Heavier gloves might help too. A mandatory 8 count will help. The three knockdown rule might help. Helmets help in football. Automatic timeouts after a concussion help in school games, no? We can’t just sit on our butts and do nothing, whether you’re liberal, conservative, or of no political persuasion or party. I don’t know what I am politically and don’t care. I just call the shots as I see them. Obviously we’ve got to clamp down on guns. AND DON’T TELL ME GUN CONTROL WILL NOT HELP KEEP GUNS AWAY FROM CRAZY PEOPLE or people who otherwise misuse them. That’s impossible. Whether it will work 100% of the time is another issue. I’ve covered this ground in the past. If guns can only be bought on the black market their prices will go up. Their trade will be regulated, BY THE BLACKMARKET, not the regular market, which is much more regulatory, because regulated by gangsters (the old saw that crime is self-enforced in Las Vegas because criminals have to deal with gangsters as well as cops). Someone sells on the black market and they’re not going to sell to any crackpot, assuming they had the money and connections either. A distraught spouse isn’t suddenly going to say, “Oh, gee, I think I”ll buy a gun on the black market.” Of course all this depends on opposing the gun lobby; on a real enforcement of the policy. Frankly I don’t think any presidential hopeful will have the courage to oppose the gun lobby until the franchise speaks louder than it.

      1. Ted says:


        Let me be perfectly clear: I do not need your permission to protect my family.

        The greatest threat to this nation is not guns, but people willing to sacrifice their rights for a perceived increase in safety. Benjamin Franklin said, “”They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

        In your whimsical utopia, nobody does anything bad and the police arrive seconds after you call 911. While someone is beating your wife or raping your daughter, I presume you would kindly ask them to stop until you have a chance to call the police.

        Faced with a criminal intent on doing you harm (which happens everyday), in your situation the police are arriving with a body bag for you or your wife or your children. In my situation, the body bags would be for the perpetrators.

        You’re a fool beyond measure and if you think for one nano-second that I will ever give up my right to bear arms – you’re in for quite a surprise.

      2. Ted says:


        Here’s a story of a *GASP* concealed carry permit holder in Florida who thwarted an armed robbery on the street. The good guy went home & slept in his bed that night – the bad guy went to the hospital and now prison for 15 years. If the guy hadn’t shot the thug, the thug would probably keep robbing people at gunpoint. (which in your opinion is the better option because the average joe citizen can’t be trusted with a gun).

        Oh, and your “theories” on the black market are laughable. The bad guys will ALWAYS have the ability to buy guns on the black market – there won’t be any “regulation” of the black market. The bad guys will sell a gun to WHOEVER has the money – hence the monetary allure of the black market.

        I like what Robert Heinlein said, “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

        — Robert A. Heinlein, “Beyond This Horizon”, 1942

        1. Richard says:

          First let me applaud you on your controlled use of rhetoric. I deleted another post without response because he used the word “stupid” or “idiot” at some point (I deleted it so fast I don’t even recall the word, but it was disrespectful & implicitly baiting, so I deleted it without much ado). If we are to resolve this gun issue we’ve got to control our emotions and DEBATE rationally; hurling insults around, whether at conservatives or liberals is not the solution, not to mention that often people don’t even know which side of the political divide the person is on anyway. I can honestly say I belong to no political party and never have.

          To the topic. Obviously a gun is useful. No one denies this. I have NO SYMPATHY at all for a burglar who’s shot in his butt or worse. We’re talking about gun control, not necessarily a gun ban. Sure, I present my argument as an abolition of guns, because one always presents an extreme argument first. A lawyer asks 50 million for spilled hot coffee in a restaurant but then settles out of court for 15 thousand.

          Also my extreme “gun ban” position is to contravene the absurd argument to the Bill of Rights. Gun advocates keep misciting that amendment, omitting the conditional clause about a well-armed standing army. Besides which they take it out of historical context: guns were NOT then what they are today. Cities were not then what they are today. Anomie prob. did not exist, certainly not the degree of schizoid disassociation common in big cities today, right? There were extended families, There was an honor code, including dueling, which enforced that honor code (Burr v. Hamilton). All of these are inherent constraints on the type of mindless violence prevalent today. At worst, a person died in a prearranged duel. No freaking nut fired wildly into congressional reps, nor could they anyway, with the time it took to reload, etc.

          Am I making sense? I only wish gun advocates would push their agenda while at the same time base that agenda on other issues, such as the one you present. Arguments from the BoR just don’t make sense. By that logic one can still claim Native Americans and blacks are not full citizens. But times change, as do constitutional interpretations.

          As for your comment that my ideas of the black market are “laughable,” well I don’t think so. Clearly the average nut would not have the contacts to purchase a black market gun, nor the money. Perhaps a rich businessman who wants to murder his spouse might get access to a gun, but he would have anyway if guns were legal, since his reputation as a businessman would have given him an easy licensed weapon. We can’t argue black market sociology or economies in this short space. Suffice it to say I don’t think I’m being naive. The key is ENFORCEMENT. If prison sentences were like in Asia the black market would still exist but be tightly controlled. The avg. high school punk isn’t going to be parading about with a gun shooting him in the arm or thigh when there’s a mandatory 20 year sentence. Look, we can argue this in circles. I’m not saying I have the bottom line on what would happen with the sale of guns in the black market; all I’m saying is it’s not as naive as you think . And keep in mind, guns are not an addiction. It’s virtually impossible to sanction the sale of women or alcohol because those are BIOLOGICAL needs (the one basic to the male libido, the other acquired in a short period of time). An alkie will get a drink if he has to drink cough syrup or gasoline. A recent news item told of a hospital patient who phoned a call girl line even while he was convalescent in the hospital bed. That’s what I mean by addictions. No such thing would happen with guns, except to people who precisely because guns are an “addiction” (improperly speaking) shouldn’t have them in the first place (I’m referring to “Gangsta” culture and people who need their “piece” in order not to feel naked).

          As for your story, well like I said, I’m not an absolutist. YOu present legislation that would greatly curtail the sale of guns and I’d support it. That would include anyone caught with an illegal gun would result in a mandatory 20 year sentence for both possession and sale. No plea bargains either. I’ll take your word that you are a rational citizen just out to defend your family; and you make sense too. But then prove your sense by supporting serious gun bans on questionable individuals and work together with Congress to hammer out such a ban that would be both practical and strict. PS: It would be nice if you had written “wrong” instead of “laughable” about one of my comments. Just a little word can make a difference in either building bridges or burning them. And for an important issue like guns, we can’t afford to burn any bridges. We’ve got to keep talking until a compromise solution is hammered out.

          1. Ted says:


            Now I’m tracking. I thought that I had misread a couple of your earlier posts, but I hadn’t. You work for CBS (or a local affiliate) and you have the power to delete posts on this website (or at least this article). Honestly (& I don’t mean this sarcastically) I thought the media & it’s representatives were supposed to be unbiased? CBS has a reputation for espousing liberal views.

            From the wikipedia site:

            “Conservative critics of the media say some bias exists within a wide variety of media channels including network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and the New York Times.[”

            Something that I’ve noticed with news organizations (& it’s not just the “liberal” ones) is that they have become more polarized in the last several years.

            Anyway, my problem (& many others problem) with “gun control” is that it is a slippery slope. There most definitely are elements who wish to ban guns. They aren’t stupid enough to come out and say, “Let’s ban guns”, but rather they seek to do it in steps. Step one is to get a list of everyone who has guns.

            One slippery slope has started in Chicago. The attorney general wanted to publish the names of all people in Illinois who own guns. Not just handguns – ALL guns.


            Luckily this was defeated (Even the police in Illinois were opposed to the measure). This would have been a roadmap for a wave of violence. The criminals would know who had guns (and therefore they would have targeted those homes to make sure that nobody was home when they robbed the place and looked for their guns) and the criminals would know that the people who were not on the list didn’t have weapons to protect themselves with.

            What would the outcome be of a wave of violence after they had published this list? Lisa Madigan would hold a press conference and tell everyone, “SEE, GUNS LEAD TO VIOLENCE! WE NEED TIGHTER CONTROLS ON GUNS!” And then there would be new legislature to make darn sure that guns were a lot harder to buy and keep (legally of course).

            The anti-gun groups try every trick in the book to make people scared of guns and convince the American public that guns are evil. I fired my first gun at 8 years old and I have hunted off and on throughout my life. I know many people(> 50) that own guns and are responsible gun owners. None of these people have killed themselves or a spouse with a gun. None of these people have been arrested for threatening someone with a gun. None of these people have accidentally shot someone.

            Gun enthusiast are not the criminals. Many of us are veterans and we remember what we (and countless others before us) were willing to lay our lives down for:

            our rights as Free Men under the Constitution of the United States.

            1. Richard says:

              Another good post. BTW, what I meant by DELETING A POST was merely in my mailbox, not on Yahoo! I’m a common citizen. I just don’t waste time with people who are unable to discourse and resort to words like “idiot,” “stupid,” and the like. I see no need for those words, unless the person is unmistakeably an idiot, saying all people of ethnicity X should be exterminated, etc. But then it’s not even worth responding to such a post in the first place.

              Like I have said in the past, a compromise can be hammered out on this issue, including stricter controls, background checks and (you may disagree with me on this, but I think it’s a REASONABLE compromise: a ban on all automatic weapons. After all, a revolver can keep a burglar at bay just as well. And psychos can’t do that much damage with an ordinary revolver. That I would think is a reasonable compromise.

              As for background checks, obviously no one knows if this rational lawyer would become suddenly irrational if his wife or her husband left. So there’s a limit to a background check. With a ban on automatic weapons the carnage would be limited; and, in any case, the victims are usually domestic and easily victimized by kitchen utensils as well as a gun.

              Oddly enough, though someone sarcastically asked “are you scared?” first I don’t even live in the US but in Asia, where there are no guns; so I’m speaking without personal motivation. Second, I’ve often felt apprehensive about returning to the States, not due to guns (I”ve never feared being attacked, though I lived in New York for many years and walked the streets of Union City, NJ and New York many nights) but due to pit bulls. So if someone asked “are you scared of pit bulls” I would honestly answer YES. One never knows when one of those beasts will come charging.I would be more vocal about banning pit bulls than about banning guns. I suspect being hit by a bullet is less painful than being mauled by one of those beasts. (Oh, yes, I know, they’re sweet and lovely animals around children, etc.)

              Regarding your slope metaphor, I really don’t think so. By analogy, no one believes that by restricting legal prostitution to certain areas (Vegas, etc.) that one expects, using the slope analogy, that prostitution will ultimately be banned. That’s impossible. With the gun lobby the chances of a gun ban within our lifetimes or those of y(our) children is unrealistic, just like the abolition of social welfare programs. No one expected a slope effect when in the past challenges to indiscriminate welfare funds were challenged! That never happened nor is likely to happen.

              Quite frankly, based on your arguments in your post(s), I doubt if a gun ban would ever affect you or people like you. But a more stringent control of guns is long overdue. To me that’s just common sense. The kinds of controls are debatable as is how to implement them, etc. But where there’s a need, there’s a deed eventually.

              1. Ted says:

                Here’s another article of someone with a gun who saved someone’s live by using it:


                The victim was being stabbed by a perp with a knife and a witness pulled a gun and held the perp until police arrived. If this brave citizen hadn’t pulled his gun, I’m sure the victim would be dead now (based on what I’ve read in the article). Sadly, the victim who was stabbed is in critical condition might still die.

                These kinds of stories happen all the time (you know – where someone with a gun scares away a burglar, thug, etc or stops an attempted robbery ), but the mainstream media doesn’t highlight them. It’s more sensationalistic to try to sell the lie that guns are evil.

              2. Lburk says:

                Actually you are incorrect in you defining of the second amendment. There is nothing about an Army in the second amendment. The second amendment states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Do not confuse militia with Army. An Army is an organization of professional soldiers trained for their duties. A militia on the other hand is an organization, or “Army” if you will of “Citizen Soldiers”. Your argument that the 2nd amendment is misused is really off base. The 2nd amendment is very clear and concise. How would one be able to raise a militia of “Citizen Soldiers” if the government took all of their weapons.
                One of the greatest tools of dictatorship is to relieve the citizenry of the ability to defend itself.

                1. Richard says:

                  Surely you know I chose the word “army” deliberately and am perfectly aware of the original wording. I chose the word “army” for rhetorical reasons, to make a point and to emphasize the point in contemporary wording. And you are absolutely wrong in your quibbling distinction, a fact reflected in your slippery use of the word “army” all over again after denying “militia” meant “army” (“or “Army” if you will”). Well you are wrong. “Militia” means “army,” period, semantics aside.

                  Go check any valid dictionary. You are quibbling and you are (in my opinion) being devious and there is also a little of a “lecture” ploy in your rhetoric, an aura of “teaching” the “uninformed” in order to clinch your point.

                  For other readers, do not be misled; there is no doubt about the synonymity, if anachronicity, of the two words. And the conditional clause means exactly what it says, to wit: an army is important to defend against tyranny, which, due to British influence, might come as much from within as from without and, moreover, in those days, as in biblical days, could come at any moment. Well, times don’t change much and the same prevails today, though from different military means. The word “militia” incidentally8 comes from the same word as “military” as even a cursory understanding of etymology should make evident.

                  For those who tendentiously reject my argument here are valid definition from an online dictionary:

                  a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
                  : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

                  I hope that’s clear enough. Incidentally you are doing precisely what you claim gun control is trying to do, gradually, by a slippery slope, take all gun rights away. By lecturing on the use of the word “militia,” you seem, by a slippery semantic slope, to deprive your interlocutor of any control of the rhetoric of the discourse. Once that is accomplished with the word “militia,”you can then control other aspects of the discourse until, before you know it, you’ll be lecturing your interlocutor on every detail of Constitutional law, the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, historical context.

                  There is no question in my mind you are devious explicating the Second Amendment. It is indisputably clear semantically and historically; any other gloss will simply not hold up to serious scrutiny.

                  The main purpose of that Amendment was, in view of the hard fought freedom achieved from the British and other Colonial influences threatening the young Republic, the Amendment guaranteed that, by military means, that freedom would not be infringed. A freely elected government had no fear from its own government at the level you suggest, such that it needed to own guns to, say, kill senators, in the style of Julius Caesar. These people had, by the time of the American Revolution, a LONG history, a deeply entrenched love of liberty.Whatever other differences obtained, such as slavery, the issue of liberty was never of concern. In fact the issue of slavery was fought on both sides as an issue of liberty (the right of slaves to be free and the right of slave states to be free to own slaves).

    2. liberal says:

      stupid conservatives. go after the dealers who sell the damn things illegally. You know who they are. Put them in jail. period. Also, require private dealers, ANY dealers really, to do a background check before they’ll sell a gun, period.

      1. Richard says:

        That’s where it’s at, really. I’m not an absolutist on the gun issue, on the proviso that people don’t claim the right to own guns based on the Bill of Rights! But, sure, I’m willing to compromise with gun owners or gun advocates. What I’m saying is the INDISCRIMINATE sale of guns, just to make a freaking buck, has got to be sanctioned in some very strong legal statute. Quite simply, for one, any sale of a gun without REASONABLE background check, and the seller would be held equally liable for the crime. Send fear into gun sellers. If gun advocates are SINCERE, then look at how I’m willing to compromise my position. Instead of a total ban on gun ownership there has got to be a serious ban on the sale of guns without a reasonable background check; or, possilbly, even sale by a certified police official. By a reasonable background check, I mean there should be criteria established and enforced. Anyone with a single legal violation might have trouble, by those standards, purchasing a gun. I would make an exception of jaywalking and offenses like that. Certainly drunken driving might prohibit the sale or ownership of a gun for maybe up to 2 years until the record shows no repeat. These things (criteria) should be hammered out in Congress by reps of both sides of the divide (pro and anti guns). I’ve never been an absolutist about anything if only for pragmatic reasons: there a diversity of public opinion out there, of factions, and one must compromise or get nothing done at all.

    3. JOSE0311USMC says:


  5. JC says:

    Unfortunately, until the Constitution (the 2d Amendment) is re-interpreted, this issue will never go away. So long as people believe that everyone is entitled to bear arms, there will always be someone out there willing to sell a weapon to anyone.

    1. JusDav says:

      re? interpreted??? huh. No need to do that. The framers stated we have the right to bear arms. not pistols, rifles gumball machines. ARMS. This includes slingshots all the way to nuclear weapons. do you understand the reason for the 2nd ? to be able to protect ourselves from a corrupt government. therefore, we were given the rights to own any arms that the gov. has. wouldnt be a fair fight otherwise.


  6. bipar08 says:

    t bloomberg have anything else to do?

  7. Meme Meyagi says:

    .what is done about 7 million mooslime terrorists living in usa?

    1. boomer says:

      Muslims are not Terrorists, some Terrorists are Muslims but beyond that Genocide is a no no even if based upon Religious Grounds…

      Ever wonder what History would be taught if Hitler won the war?

    2. J.c. Edmond says:

      Timothy McVeigh was a Muslim?

  8. Illegalmama says:

    Interesting concept…illegal guns. I, for one, am not sure what ‘illegal’ means any more. Sure, it means whatever it is is contrary to law but there are some ‘illegal’ actions we protect from the law and then others we want the law to rid us of. My biggest wonder is can an illegal posses a legal gun or a gun be legal possed by an illegal person. First, I think we need to understand whch laws are legal, followed and those we should follow. Simply put…’illegal’ is a meaningless concept. – especially when attached to an inanimate object as oppossed to an animate one.

    1. Slam dunk says:

      What part of “illegal” do you not understand? if you are an illegal alien as your name indicates then your post makes sense because you think our immigration laws don’t pertain to you and you live among us “illegally” without the proper paperwork our immigration laws require. Why would we think that you could ever grasp the concept of illegal guns if you can’t grasp the concept of illegal alien!?

  9. tbaby says:

    Is he not the MAYOR of one of the greatest cities in the world? What has or is he doing to stop the gun violence in his city? Is it not why he was elected? But he is now looking like the NEW american who blames everyone else but himself then trying to rectify it by putting the responsiblity on the shoulders of others. I personally think alot of the issues we have with our government could be solved by having the person do the job because its the right thing to do and will benefit everyone or a majority; which wiould be evident by who would run while having to work just like their constituents, maybe receive a stipend at the end of congress session and have to depend on their job to offer security and health insurance and decide if they want the next person to have the same rights as they do(if legal of course). Tell the MAYOR of NEW YORY to stop being a WUSS, it’s making the world think even less of him and us as americans. Be a man and take responsibility for your job requirements, failures and successes alike. Yes, the OBAMA camp and the congress should take note to, but the buck STARTS with BLOOMBERG. Will be watching to see how long he blames others and not the criminals who is making this a living hell everywhere and what he is ACTUALLY doing about his problem-maybe NEW YORKERS want a new Mayor on who can admit something needs to be changed and do something about it or continue to blame ANYONE to take the heat off himself. God Bless to all law enforcement who has to deal with idiots because our GOVERNMENT and this new soft society can’t make up their minds to just PUNISH those who truly deserve it.

    1. Mark says:

      Excellent response. It would seem that is the typical politician of this election. He is completely incapable to preform his job duties so he must place the blame on the other incompetant. Mr. Bloomburg, It is not the job of the federal govt. to regulate guns within your city. That is what you were hired to do, not to act like another Al Sharpton. He is not paid to represent the people and therefore allowed to be a clueless, biggoted idiot. You do not have that luxury. Pres Obama is not the responsibility for running your city. He cannot handle his job let alone his combined with yours

  10. Rodin says:

    @ ski2xs

    Would you please learn some grammar and spelling or get Spellcheck BEFORE your next post or will you insist on remaining a prototype of your kind?

  11. JDK747 says:

    How about you damn well better do something about the illegals. That sounds much better now doesnt it.

    1. Rodin says:

      Bigots are always off-topic. Bigotry is all they know.

      1. Slam dunk says:

        Illegals need to go. Why are Americans bigots if they want rid of those that use our resources for their own benefit but they refuse to do the right thing by becoming Legal Immigrants.

        JDK747’s comment kind of does belong to this story since many of the illegals own illegal guns and commit crimes against Americans with those guns. Clean up the drug gangs and deport the illegals and you will get many of the illegal guns off the street. Criminals don’t care where they get their weapons or who they use them on.

        Oh…and as an aside… anyone who crosses the borders without the proper papers is a criminal.

        1. Rodin says:

          You’re still off topic; still ranting bigotry. Get on topic or don’t bother me again. I won’t bother with you.

        2. JOSE0311USMC says:

          I AGREE. ILLEGALS SHOULD BE DEPORTED. THEY COSTING TAX PAYERS 444 millions ..the main reason insurance premiums are so high..paying for illegals healthcare–schooling is crazy. is not right, not fair.. the states should take the laws in their hands, the hell with the federal government. i’m a hispanic guy, so don’t call me a bigot..

          1. Richard says:

            I’m not sure what the main focus of this thread is, but I see no problem with SlamDunk’s position as it was partly quoted in the text I read. By definition, whether you’re Hispanic, French, Canadian, or American (in France, say) illegals have no right to be in the country, much less to be educated or work there. What’s the problem? When our elected officials start responding to their franchise rather than to the editorials in powerful newspapers that wield endorsement powers, then we’ll solve this problem. Racist? No one applauds the ethnic diversity of my fellow Americans louder than I do. If it were not for Jewish immigrants there would be no Broadway, there would be no Great American Songbook, from Berlin to Sondheim. Come to think of it, if it were not for homosexuals half of that Songbook would be missing. If it were not for Italians we would not have Sinatra, Dino, Perry, and all the rest. There would be no GODFATHER trilogy. There would be no governor of Noo Yawk. Without Latinos and Latinas we would be missing a great part of American culture, in dance, music, politics. There would be no Gershwin, an icon of US concert and pop music (another Jewish immigrant). I dare not mention the ethnic diversity of our culinary delights thanks to Indian immigrants, thanks to Native Americans, French immigrants, Vietnamese, etc. But nota bene: ALL of these immigrants came in the hard way (or they used to). And it would be a hard case to undermine my argument by saying that the best of our immigrants entered illegally! One more thing: do you “illegals” ever think how discriminatory you’re being to legal immigrants, who have to pay exorbitant fees, say from Taiwan, to enter our country legally, while some of you just walk or wade (“wetbacks”) across casually? I can’t believe the freaking ARROGANCE of some of you too: you walk around with ILLEGAL blazoned across your sweatshirts! What’s the matter with you? As TV producer David Susskind used to say (at least in David Frye’s impression), “Why can’t you be nice?”

  12. Cindy Cheney says:

    Sadly, I do agree with the judge. Nothing was recovered. She was judging on the offense at hand, not the record.

    But, I agree with the law lacking logic. How can some teenagers get charged with felony terrorism for setting off homemade bombs in their back yard with parents at home? And then the father being charged with something when he told the officer he didn’t know it was illegal? Too many little laws and not enough important laws.

    I support gun permits. But for that to work; all gun sales have to come under the law. Simply set up a process for all gun buyers to have a license; similar to a driver’s license. That is within the Constitution.

    1. Robert says:

      Some states do have those licenses. I live in Illinois and we have them they work well. But these licences do not stop criminals from getting guns its not like they walk into a store and buy them. Also this Mayor needs to deal with his Govenor if he wants something done. The States handle the gun laws themselves.

  13. THE Reality Tsar says:

    What is a “private dealer” as in ” Private dealers are not required to conduct background checks prior to a sale”

    Dealers are required to conduct background check.

    Private persons who execute a few sales of firearms in a year are not.

    Whether one is, or is not a dealer is a matter of law. For example in Ma. if you sell more than 4 firearms in a year to a person who is not a delaer YOU are a dealer.

  14. Rodin says:

    All talk about guns and “rights,” NRA and the Constitution. Barely a mention of Peter Figoski, dead, or his grieving family; nothing but blather or bluster. Who cares?!

    I am not often silent but this whole thread is an abomination. I’ve read enough and am opting out.

    1. jack says:

      Ahhhh,the story isn’t about Peter Figoski,it’s about Mayor Bloomberg and his quest rid the world of guns.

      How is the thread an abomination,of what? Nobody required your presence or voice…

      1. Rodin says:

        1 It should be.

        2 This is an open forum. Neither you nor I were INVITED. We needn’t be.

        3 “…of what?” BECAUSE of what: Killing.

        1. jack says:

          No,OF what,It’s an abomination OF what? What is the the article an abomination OF?

          Why should the article be about Figorski? I’m guessing there were countless articles about his death,this article is not about his death it’s about the “illegal”guns that were used to kill him.

          Last and not least you are in idiot! If all you have to do in life is correct others than that means you are a failure at every other level.

          A dim witted “scholar”

          1. Rodin says:

            If you can’t figure it out, too bad. Those without arguments always resort to insult. Maybe you should re-read … from the top, although I doubt it will improve your grasp an.

            Go Jack-off and stop boring me with your insouciant boorishness. You’re not worth a pixel more.

  15. F-BLOOMBERG says:

    The Ruger P95 is not an illegal un .. its maybe illegal to own in the State of New York because of their laws .. but in the other 49 states its not an illegal gun … maybe he meant the perp obtained it illegally …

  16. Charlie says:

    Article [II]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  17. boomer says:


    Gun control involves a condom.

    Firearms control involves Sight Picture, Trigger Control and Follow Through.

    Neither are inclusive.

  18. boomer says:

    The Mayor is a liar, he breaks the law as he feels like doing and he would love nothing more than to have no one but those in charge to have firearms. For all of those who support him, his ideas and banning firearms. Have you ever stopped and thought about the fact that those who are in charge and are pushing for this have no need for a firearm in the least? They have paid 24/7 armed security.

    You and they want to put everyone in the position of having to beg for your life or your child’s. The difference is, they will never ever be in that position and your willing to be so. I’m not, I feel very sad for you that are.

    1. THE Reality Tsar says:

      I am a native Brooklynite. In 1979 I obtained a long gun (rifle/shotgun) permit (I owned several Rifles, and Shotguns), which I held until 1999 when I moved to Ma. for a job.

      In 2000 in Ma. I obtained a permit for long guns and “carry” permit for handguns. From 2000 until 2010 I carried a handgun; I never needed it. I never had any mishaps, but I usually had it on me. I practiced at my local range and at Smith & Wesson several times a month. I took classes at Smith & Wesson. I was highly prfiient with firearms.

      In 2010 I cam eback to NYC and I applied for a carry permit and I was denied. ” I had no need for one”

      Donald Trump, Don Imus and Howard Stern have carry permits. If you are politically connected you can get a permit. If you are a normal person who is sane, has no criminal history, and has a long history of responsible firearms ownership, in Bloomberg’s NY you are out of luck.

      Criminals who commit violent crimes, like this skell, generally have long histories of violent crime before they commit the headline grabber we know them for.

      The answer is to lock offenders with multiple crimes up for decades upon decades, not destroy the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.

      Bloomberg, a guy who never goes anywhere without 6 bodyguards is anti gun, not anit crime.

  19. ben says:

    Legal or not legal , Guns made to be fire … and something somebody got hit and it causes death … why dont just ban firearms. 🙂

    1. THE Reality Tsar says:

      The answer is to lock offenders with multiple crimes up for decades upon decades, not destroy the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.

  20. Curioius says:

    1. Exit by way of the window…I presume, then, that you live alone, and on the ground floor.
    2. An “illegal Ruger P95” (a SEMI-automatic pistol, not subject to Federal restrictions)…would that be, in reality, an IILLEGALLY-OBTAIINED P95?
    3. constantly “trained”+join a range or gun club, take a class and Practice, Practice, Practice. Military or law enforcement training is the only legitimate form available? Really?
    Once again, the tool is criminalized, and the criminal is an innocent victim of temptation.
    Was it a lawful, legal act to commandeer aircraft and pilot them into occupied structures. No. Did it happen, anyway. You know the answer.
    Bad people do bad things, and use inanimate objects to accomplish their ends
    That will never change.
    You want to outlaw guns? Do you think it will stop? \
    Ponder a maniac with a simple chainsaw, at any public venue….how many people could be killed or maimed before someone stopped him. How long for the police to respond, from 911 call to arrival to termination of the threat. And would ANY one of you who thinks that firearms are evil have what it takes to step up to confront that kind of threat? How would you terminate the threat?
    A bystander with a firearm and non-military/LE training is on-scene, you and the Police: who has the best chance of stopping the lunatic.?

    Looking forward to your responses.

    1. Richard says:

      The bottom line is guns should be outlawed. That means ALL guns. Period. Doesn’t matter what the gun lobby says. When more of the electorate pressure their officials to outlaw guns they will be outlawed, period. All arguments against this position are essentially shallow and even frivolous. Kitchen knives kill too. Well, d’oh. So do open windows, stairs, and a lollipop stick shoved down the throat can serve just as well. That’s not the salient point. A gun can decimate an entire mall population in seconds. As for using a gun to protect oneself, how many people actually do that? Very rare. And, of course, if guns were truly outlawed, and that prohibition was seriously enforced, not too many people would own guns in the first place. And, in the second place, they would consider a gun a premium. One doesn’t use a premium gun for random silly crimes but for major bank heists, for organized criminal activities, etc. A black market gun isn’t going to be carried around recklessly, in the first place. And in the second place it’s not going to be used recklessly. Ironically it’s precisely the crackpot who would have least access to a black market gun (1) because he’s a crackpot, and (2) he’s unlikely to have organized crime contacts, and (3) he wouldn’t have the money to buy a gun on the black market anyway. What rabid estranged hubby will obtain access to a black market gun or have the sense to even locate a purchase. Finally if gun laws made clear that any crime committed with a gun purchased on the black market would also inculpate the seller of that gun, once traced, sales would be even more inhibited. As for a gun for protection, another issue: do you seriously want someone to start a shoot out on Main Street “protecting” citizens when more innocent people might be killed trying to protect them than trying to kill them? And that doesn’t include quite common tragedies of parents who own guns to protect their families only to have a family member find it and kill a little sibling. Let’s all wake up, America. One final point: the argument from the Bill of Rights is another of those frivolous arguments gun advocates use. That has been done to death and I’m almost embarrassed to have to address the issue again: clearly the Bill of Rights refers to “a standing army” in the days when the main government was not yet stable and there was threat of foreign invasion; and the people, used to an oppressive government, needed the assurance they could rebel at any moment. But times have changed; and in any case, the Constitution and BoR mean whatever 9 people say it means. That’s obvious. Those 9 people once said slaves were not full people, in fact 1/8 of a white person. Those 9 people would not say the same thing today. Once upon a time, kids, a gun took longer to load and shoot than the time it took a knife to be plunged into someone’s heart. That’s hardly the case anymore. Today a five-year-old child can shoot dozens of bullets in seconds. Wake up! We’re no longer living in the time of ball and musket. Let’s get sensible once and for all and outlaw guns.

      1. boomer says:

        scared huh?

        1. Rodin says:

          Yeap, you bet, and willing to admit it, but not paranoid like so many a gun-toter.

          1. ski2xs says:

            LOL. . . not paranoid. Just sensible enough to know that I’m not Chuck Norris. That begs the question. . do you wear a seatbelt?

            1. Rodin says:

              Just checking to see how warped this posturing would get. Prime example:

              “That begs the question. . do you wear a seatbelt?”

              Yes. Seat belts are designed to save lives, not to kill. Can you tell the difference?

              “Not paranoid,” “sensible”? Delusional.

          2. boomer says:

            Why do you label me as Paranoid because I am licensed, trained and do carry a firearm?

            It my choice to be able to protect myself and my loved ones or others who are not capable from imminent threat of grievous bodily injury or death at the hands of a violent criminal.

            You know, Canada banned handguns and the murder rate did not go down.

            It is a simple fact that if someone is sick enough to decide that murdering another human being is what they want to do, they are going to do it. Be it with a Hammer, Knife, Gas, Car, Truck, Cleaning product Bomb, Strangulation, Rock or anything else they can think of using. That is unless the person does in fact have the ability to defend them self and if it happens to be with a Legally Owned firearm then hurray for John Q citizen for coming out on top and being alive.

            How is it being paranoid to be prepared to defend yourself? It isn’t like you can carry a COP in your pocket and besides that there is nothing in the job description dictating a Police Officer is required to Protect anyone but them self.

            Don’t look to Constitution for help. “In its landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,” Stevens writes, “the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.”

            So, you are pretty much on your own and it is you choice to bet your life and the lives of your loved ones on that choice.

            My choice it to be ready if or when something happens where I do need to kill to protect my loved ones or self.

            Hell, if someone was doing their best the smash your skull in or rape your child when you happened to open your homes front door and you had to attempt to talk them out of it or go hand to hand ( I assume you have at least been trained in open hand combat? ) then power to you and good luck with that.

            Think that doesn’t happen? Do you think the people that type of thing happens to are morally superior or less paranoid than those who are ready, willing and able to prevent it?

            I don’t have an issue with those who do not wish to own a firearm or to be schooled in Martial Arts. They may never ever need either.

            But I do take issue with those that make the choice to be vulnerable to any common criminal and not only expect but pretty much demand that everyone else do so.

            Every LEO I know personally and there are over 500 on our department which I come face to face with at least once a year feels to the bone that citizens should be ready and willing. Including being armed.

            I do agree with you that there are those that would probably be classified Paranoid using the DSMV which do legally own and carry firearms. But is a far cry from all of them. Grouping them all into one bunch of “paranoid gun toter’s” is reaching a bit don’t you think?

            1. Rodin says:

              Why, that’s very nice. But you can’t bring your gun with you. Why must you “shoot” the breeze. Can’t we just talk?

            2. Rodin says:

              I didn’t ‘label’ you anything. “Many a…” leaves room for some, those with legitimate reasons. If the shoe fits, wear it, as the saying goes.

              Are you a cop, L.E.O.?

              Why do you use Canada as an example when it has a minimal crime rate, especially compared to the US?

      2. Ski2xs says:

        Wow, live in a city much?

        I live in a place in which if I log a 911 emergency call, it will be nearly 45 minutes before anyone can respond. Last year alone there were several incendents of predatory wildlife. In our case out here, citizens have protected themselves in about 75% of incidents where a firearm had to be used.

        BTW, I can take the surplus 5 ton I bought, weld blast plates to the windows, and drive the darned thing straight through a mall and probably take more people out than I could with a gun.

        Thank GOD the community I’m from isn’t spearheaded by the ignorant radicalism diskplayed here. “Used to be an oppressive government”. . .Taken a look at many UT vids lately of police power abuses and brutality? Taken a good look at headlines lately in which blatent elitism is rewarded by government? “five-year-old. . .Dozens fo bullets in seconds”. . . have you ever fired a weapon? Or are you so naive that you’ll buy into the whole “every assult weapon is fully automatic” hysteria? I can only assume the latter.. .. “quite common tragedies . . . . only to have a family member find it and kill a little sibling”. . .please, give us your bandwagoning statistics on the percentage ratio that this happens to gun owners who have families. . . . Let me take wild assumption, quite like the one you made there. . . those kids who don’t have proper sex education are probably more likely to end up pregnant or with an STD too. . . stop HIDING and start EDUCATING. Something that is clearly not presented in your radical rant.

        How about this? Our federal government, in some of the last remaining wisdom it has, has ruled time and time again on the 2nd. . .how about we take away your 1st?

        BOTTOM LINE. . .you really want to know the BOTTOM LINE? PEOPLE kill people. . not inantimate objects. It’s not the CAR that the drunk was driving that killed a family. . it was the DRUNK. It’s not the scalpel that kills the victim of incopentent medical proceedures. . it’s the INCOMPETENT DOCTOR. Wake up! We’re no longer living in the time of naive, uneducated arguments over where the real problem lies. . . it lies in the HEARTS OF MEN. Not in the processed iron ore in which we’ve manufacted things.

        1. Richrd says:

          What’s your point here? You talk about radical rant yet you think the entire government is corrupt. You keep repeating cliches: you can kill people with your car! I can beat you at that kind of logic, as I already did in my post: I can kill with bubblegum stuffed down a child’s or elderly person’s throat. I can kill by throwing someone out a 3rd fl window, tho a 2nd fl window might do the trick too. Does that mean we just stop building multiplexes? I can kill by inviting someone to picnic on the grass in the LA smog too. And obviously there are good uses for guns; there are good uses for private ownership of wild cats too, but, just like owning guns, allowing private citizens to own their own zoos ends up in that bizarre incident a few weeks ago where someone let his animals loose before killing himself. And obviously my reference to “oppressive government” meant a government that, without due recourse of citizens, can usurp power, tho I suspect in your opinion that has already been done. And every assault weapon does not have to be automatic; one’s enough. But, hey, I’m not by any means as radical as you think about this issue; besides which radicalism never passes laws anyway. Just like I’m not radical about food laws. Just compromise is good enough for me. If commercial companies were bound by law to produce 10% of their products for health-conscious people that would satisfy me. So long as I can walk into a supermarket and buy plain nuts, 100% juice, plain pumpkin seeds, and dark chocolates or sugarless yogurts, I’m satisfied. Surely a compromise can be hammered out on the gun issue, can’t it? First, certainly outlaw ALL automatic weapons.That would include any weapon with clips, machine guns, etc. Just old-fashioned rifles, revolvers. Access to those guns would be SEVERELY limited or licensed. Not the casual crap we have today. Guns can only be purchased at the local police station, not anywhere else. People in the country would have more freedom of ownership for certain kinds of guns to kill animals, etc. See I’m willing to compromise, but I don’t think gun advocates would accept this kind of compromise. My main concern is not even guns; it’s the faux analogies, it’s the faux arguments that I’m tired of hearing or reading. What the hell does the Bill of Rights have to do with guns today? It’s a joke. That was OBVIOUSLY not intended in the way it’s interpreted today. The political situation was different and the gun was even more radically different; the concentration of populations was different; there was a constant threat of other governments; there was the Indian threat; wild animals; the necessity to hunt (not the mere sport of hunting). Shall I g on? Constitutional interpretations always reflect mundane realities; and the Constitution is whatever 9 people say it is or means. Women had no right vote, BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION. Blacks had no right to freedom, BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION. People had the right to bear arms, BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION. Today women can vote, no one would argue blacks should be enslaved and no one SHOULD argue people have the right to bear arms. As for a sibling being killed, I’m fond of that employment quote: If you’re out of a job the unemployment rate is 100%. If you’re 2-year-old is killed with a gun by an older sibling the tragedy is 100%. Don’t talk to me of percentages in situations like that. That woman who lost her policeman husband suffers 100%, not 2%. Finally, stop that silly cliche, one of many gun advocates spout, that people kill people. True, but if people kill people with guns, and guns can be controlled, then one can control guns. We outlaw firecrackers periodically too for the same reason; and firecrackers usually maim a person without killing them. Some prohibitions are admittedly unrealistic. We’ll never prohibit prostitution or alcohol consumption, because those are bodily addictions or at least compulsions. But no psychologist would argue that people are addicted to guns or compelled to have them; moreover, and ironically, if that was the case, that would be precisely the reason to prevent that person from having a gun. The heart of a person did not injure Congresswoman Giffords; a gun injured Congresswoman Giffords.

          1. Ski2xs says:

            Oh really?. . .Where did I say “the entire government is corrupt”?. . .Another ASSumation from a misinformed ASSumer.

            you can “Beat me with that kind of logic”. . .By iterating what?. . .that you can kill people with a gun too?. . Well DUH!. . I can kill people with a pack of trained chiuaua too. By your OWN logic “you can kill by throwing someone from a 3rd story window, should be stop building multiplexes”. . . So, should we stop making cars? Spoons, or breeding chiuaua?

            You do realize. . of course you do. . .that our Juice has been shown to contain elevated levels of arsenic, right?. . .damn, better stop squeezing fruit!

            Now, are you seriously saying that any weapon with a clip is automatic? I can cycle an old Enfield pretty damned fast, it’s not a traditional clip fed. What about a belt fed then. I’d be okay with that. . . ban clips, let me have the belt fed. LOL

            And yes. . I WILL hit you up on ‘percentages’. . . because it looks to me like I’ve got myself quite a statistician here with you. Want stats? Look up the crime rate plumment in Kennesaw, Ga. since the mandate was issued that every home owner HAD to have a firearm. . . . What, no increased instance of family being accidentally killed there??. . Oh gosh, oh gee. . .what’s the statisticain to do?? You guys can’t stand that one. . . And moreover, look at the percentages of violent crimes. . committed with illegal guns. . since the UK ban.

            Really, have fun in your Orwellian dystopia. And speaking of control, until you find a way to control the evil in the hearts and minds of men. Then don’t even bother taking up the issue of my ability to protect myself from them, deviod of means.

            1. ski2xs says:

              Adding to that. . .Yeah, people kill people with guns, . . . and knives, rope, cars, poison, axes, ice-picks, pillows, . .. hell, there’s even a case in Europe where a jilted lover killed her rival by rigging her parachute. . . Now, tell me there Einstien, what’s the common denominator in there: Want I should give a clue? PEOPLE. Why don’t we just ban people then, eh? I like that one!

              1. Rodin says:

                A gun is an instrument DESIGNED TO KILL. Chiuaua[s] [sic]* cars, pillows and 3rd story windows are not.

                Now, what were you saying about “your OWN logic” and “Orwellian dystopia”? Or is it really Orwellian “newspeak” we’re talking about.**

                * chiHuaHua
                ** Watch it! I may be ignorant about guns but now you’re entering MY turf, Dogs and Orwell. Don’t even THINK about it!

                1. boomer says:


                  I think I would enjoy hanging out and shooting the breeze with you.

                2. Rodin says:

                  Why, that’s very nice. But you can’t bring your gun with you. Why must you “shoot” the breeze. Can’t we just talk?

                  I misplaced this reply. Having problems posting. It belongs here.

          2. ski2xs says:

            And BTW. . .do you always compose your thoughts in one long run-on paragraph?. . .How about breaking your thoughts down in a logic order, with each seperate thought having it’s own paragraph.

            Another BTW. . .I can cycle my old 1894 model Winchester faster that I can my Enfield . . .and it holds more rounds that many clip fed rifles. You certainly don’t know much about firearms do you?

            This brings a seperate thought to mind. I think those without much knowledge on the subject matter should be excluded from the debate. I mean, I darn sure don’t want a proctologist consulting me on brain tumors. Do yourself a favor, educate yourself on the subject matter some more before confirming to the world what I already know to be true about you.

            Good day sir.

            1. Richard says:

              The problem with you is you know everything about firearms except that they kill people. What does expertise about guns have to do with the rather unexpert opinion that guns kill people? Does one have to be an expert on home windows to know that a child can fall through one? That’s the trouble with gun owners and gun advocates; they try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes with occult references to the Bill of Rights, and, from there, to the Right to free speech, and from there to kinds of guns, etc. Who cares? You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. “I think those without much knowledge on the subject matter should be excluded from the debate.” What subject matter do you allude to? Incidentally, I find it curious that the Bill of Rights is so sacred to you, and, by extension, presumably fundamental human rights, yet you now “exclude” citizenry from debate on gun control on the occult basis of “knowing,” which, by your logic, presumably means people who “know” differently from you. That’s not how democracy works. We’re not debating guns here but gun control. Understand the difference.

              1. ski2xs says:

                No, the problem with me is that I have to coexist with ignorant, would-be dictators that can’t grasp the analogy that other man made objects kill too. . in fact, in greater numbers. . .however the ignorant, would-be dictators don’t want to talk about those because. . .(gasp). . . it’s something that serves a purpose in THEIR little ego driven world. They’re all to happy to continue maiming, killing, ruining familys and decimating even wildlife in their quest to reach USS Enterprise transport speeds in a selfish hurry to be somewhere quicker.. . .But again. . .that’s DIFFERENT right?. . .Why. . because YOU find purpose in it? Get a life!

                That’s the problem with ego driven, ignorant, would-be dictators? They want the entire world to conform the THEIR limited vision of how it should be. And that limited version never crosses the boundry of their own limited minds.

                And BTW. . .just because you want a proctologist working on your head (cynically fitting here, but unwise), doesn’t mean that it’s not a good idea to be versed in what you want to debate. The Bill of Rights gives me free speech. . . it doesn’t mean I’m allowed to run into a crowded theater and yell FIRE though, now does it? Parallel to that, it gives me the right to bear arms, not to commit crimes and murder with them. So why not do the world some actual good her. . Lobby your fat pig politicians to ENFORCE those that are already on the books. If they would simply do that, our argument would be rendered moot.

                1. Richard says:

                  Hmm. . . You refer to “ignorant would-be dictators” several times; you refer to politicians as fat pigs when many of them are quite undernourished. Why can’t you discuss this rationally? Have I called you a would-be dictator? Yet gun lobbies are quite dictatorial if one chooses to use that opprobrious term, which I don’t. To me a dictator is a person like Hitler, not a person like you or me. You may be wrong, but you’re not a dictator or even ignorant in the invidious sense you mean. Of course I want the world to conform to my views. Isn’t that rational? You want the world to conform to your views, right? That’s what democracy is. There are allowances for compromise, of course; but by and large if I didn’t believe in my views I wouldn’t state them; and if I believed in them I would want others to concur (i.e. conform, as you put it). BTW, just parenthetically, I don’t put much faith in experts anyway, as presumably you do. You know received opinion has been contradicted by later generations, and often within the same generation, quite commonly. So don’t talk about experts to me. Almost everything we’ve learned about too little or too much sunshine, annual checkups, radical mastectomies, etc. has been contradicted at one point or another. Indeed forensic expertise is a case in point, since each side has its expert that contradicts the other side! All so much for experts and expertise. And it was Aristotle who taught us that art is the one area of life where expertise does not matter, just reception. From the beginning of time experts in aesthetics have told us that this painting is a failure, this movie doesn’t make sense or violates generic conventions, this Rock music is noise and will soon fade, etc. Beethoven’s Late Quartets are unmusical; Van Gogh sold one painting in his life, when experts bought the paintings of peers whose work are now long forgotten. Don’t talk to me of experts, please. Experts in the medical profession are overmedicating the human race with medicines that were completely unknown even decades before. What price longevity–or placebo? As for your reference to the famous juridical ruling by Justice Brandeis I believe, you’re favoring my point: yes, the Bill of rights allows free speech but not the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, unless you’re Paul Newman in TORN CURTAIN (assuming there is no fire, of course). We have the right to assembly but that doesn’t give people the right to block fire exits or cause unnecessary traffic jams. A standing army being necessary for our freedom, we have the right to bear arms, but that doesn’t mean every individual has the right to bear arms, just those in the standing army, which means people in the military, doesn’t it?

              2. ski2xs says:

                In response to you last post. . I’ll simply remind you of these words:

                “The bottom line is guns should be outlawed. That means ALL guns. Period. Doesn’t matter what the gun lobby says. When more of the electorate pressure their officials to outlaw guns they will be outlawed, period. All arguments against this position are essentially shallow and even frivolous.”

                1. Rodin says:

                  @ Richard:

                  “Van Gogh sold one painting in his life, when experts bought the paintings of peers whose work are now long forgotten.”

                  The experts were right. Like Frida Kahlo. Without Madonna’s purchases, her pathos and the Women’s Movement, without suicide (now debatable) and Kirk Douglas Van Gogh would still be unsalable and Kahlo no more than Diego Rivera’s wife.

                  Stay on topic. Don’t infringe on my turf.

              3. boomer says:

                I think I know what the issue is, concerning myself at least.

                I have killed defending this country, seen friends killed defending this country and have no problem killing defending myself , loved ones and yes even you..

                You on the other hand despise killing, the thought of killing or others milling. All of which is a great thing, I wish the world was filled with others if the same mind set as you. But, that isn’t reality and it will not be reality for a very very long time if ever.

                The Animal would have to be removed from Humanity before that happens and it will never happen.

                sad, but trure.

                1. Rodin says:

                  “Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow creatures is amusing in itself.” = James A. Froude

      3. Kris says:

        That would be a nice place, but that would take all guns being removed. Would that be like the war on drugs? and if so I think I would perfer to be able to have my right to own a fire arm, because we have seen how well the war on drugs has gone… the world you imagine is just that imaginary.

      4. JusDav says:

        “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

        IN ANY MANNER.

        What about that statement do you not understand? Please tell me.

        1. Richard says:

          I can’t believe you’re serious & I was inclined to ignore your post, which seemed like baiting. You remind me of the air passenger who brought his credit card but forgot his passport. You forgot a clause somewhere. Go check it up; something to do with a standing army or militia. Hey, try this for a blurb: “If you want to waste your time on silly sitcom garbage, do go see Mr. Dud’s latest comedy.” I bet I can make a great blurb out of this putdown: “DO GO SEE MR. DUD’S LATEST COMEDY!” Movie Critic, Global Times.

      5. JP says:

        Epic fail you liberal troll:

        “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

        – Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

        1. Richard says:

          So what’s your point? And by the way, next time you use disrespectful language like troll, I’m going to ignore your post or that of others. Just so others know that I’m not ignoring a post because I’m unable to respond. This is a fair warning. I absolutely refuse to reply to baiting of any kind. As soon as I see baiting of any kind I just delete the post. I’m making an exception here because using the word “troll” is borderline baiting; not quite as offensive as some of the crap that goes on in these comment pages. But I’m giving you fair warning. You could have just as easily quoted Jefferson w/o using the word “troll.” Not to mention the illogicality of it. If you think I’m trolling then just ignore my post, right? Your use of Jefferson is like using the Bill of Rights and you undermine your point. First the people on this comment page argue they want to keep guns to defend themselves against criminals but now you argue against tyranny. But we have a democratic government, no matter how cynical many of us are about that democracy; no one would argue we live in a tyranny, except maybe a Marxist. Can’t you understand the situation then and now. The understandable paranoia of citizens in a new democracy who couldn’t possibly think their country would last long? Compared with today when democracy is strongly established, however weak our representation may be?

          1. JP says:

            Ah yes, once again right from the liberal playbook.

            First they say that the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to individuals. Then when someone points out that NUMEROUS founding fathers, judges, constitutional scholars all say that the 2nd amendment DOES apply to individuals, all of a sudden it’s the old “that was then and this is now” argument.

            Richard, obviously we will never see eye to eye on this. Just know this – you, nor anyone else, will EVER take away my 2nd amendment rights.

      6. Ted says:


        Let me be perfectly clear: I do not need your permission to protect my family.

        You’re getting really boorish with your BS & your sneers.

        In your whimsical utopia, nobody does anything bad and the police arrive seconds after you call 911. While someone is beating your wife or raping your daughter, I presume you would kindly ask them to stop until you have a chance to call the police.

        You’re a fool beyond measure and if you think for one nano-second that I will ever give up my right to bear arms – you’re in for quite a surprise.

    2. boomer says:

      I fully understand what your saying and frankly speaking.

      99% of the Police shoot like crap.

      Qualification for Police are a joke, they do not require them to practice at all. They provide the resources but do not require it. Most departments provide 50 rounds a month to each and ever Officer for practice. Almost all of it goes unused.

      I happen to be a Firearms Instructor licensed to do Civilian, State and Federal Qualifications. I am also a shooting coach, Tactical Rifle and Hand Gun Instructor, Competitive Shooter and Veteran. I also feel that if someone wants to lay down and be butchered or watch a loved one or even a total stranger have it done to them. Then ok, be that person, but don’t think that gives you the right to force me to sit right there with you because your in for a real shock.

  21. robert schmidt says:

    Okay, so I am a criminal because I have folks by my weapons for me? I don’t think so, as anyone who has served in the military is finding out there is a waiting period while DoD looks at your paperwork. Doesn’t mean I can’t pass a background check, just means that at gun shows you can’t wait for the feds to do a manual check. So Mayor your facts are all ready flawed, since you didn’t take that into account. Want to start over and do research properly? You know that several high profile shootings where bought with guns purchased legally. So don’t make blanket statements that folks that by firearms off to the side are all criminals. (oh yes I am FBI and Homeland Security background cleared)

    1. Chris says:

      I’m in the military and the DOD has never looked at my 4473s when I buy a gun. Also no waiting period for me since I live in FL and have a CCW here. I call BS on your post.

      The only check you have done when you fill out a 4473 is the NICS check.

  22. jay bee says:

    why was he even released in north carolina after shooting the first victim ? because its a red state and you can purchase a gun at any local pawn shop its easier to buy guns than it is to vote in the south, most guns transported here in the north illegally come outta the red states that strongly support the so called constitututional right to bear arms so long as you’re a wasp .. you break the law you go to jail like everyone else .. no ifs ands or buts .. dont matter what your intentions were or were not

  23. Dan says:

    Mayor Bloomberg doe’s not say anything about the ATF Fast and Furios scandle. The guns are not the problem. It’s the judges that let the criminals have bail that should not. Bloomberg has someone protecting him all the time. The rest of us have to fend for ourselfs. So stop complaining. And walk in our shoe’s

  24. James Bailey says:

    Why not just require EVERY ADULT to pack a gun. Wear it like Jessie James. Sure I know you say crime would rise. Maybe at first but after all these no good thugs realize everyone else has a gun and are more than willing to cap them to save their life and property, I imagine crime will come to a stand still for the most part.

    Look the bad guys are always going to have guns. Just like drugs they will be smuggled in from out of the country.

    So lets stop whining like an idiot and pass an everyone must carry law!!

    1. Guns Kill says:

      I don’t where you live but I have never been robbed. I don’t have mad, crazy lunatics running around my neighborhood. If by chance someone does break into my house, I’ll exit out the window. Guns are not the answer and your comment proves that most people should NOT be armed.

      1. The Facts says:

        You have a duty to protect yourself and your loved ones. You may not get a chance to leave your home by a window.

      2. JP says:

        So we are to believe that the numerous people who are victimized every day by home invasions (you know – the ones who are beaten half to death, raped, made to watch their wife get raped, killed, tortured, etc) only had to “exit the window”. WOW, I bet they didn’t think of that! That’s absolutely BRILLIANT!

        Of course, if you’re asleep when the perps kick your door in – you’re screwed.

        It doesn’t take “Mad, crazy lunatics running around your neighborhood” to make your house a target for a drug addict or a gangbanger to choose your house at random for a little fun. It happens everyday.

  25. DRC says:

    So the guy has a warrent from N.Carolina for a shooting and this judge lets him go? WTF.

  26. bullett says:

    Bloomberg has often attacked President Obama and Congress for not doing enough to stop the flow of illegal guns. It’s not going to happen Mike, too many gun lobbyists out there and there billions in sales out do your billions.

    1. boomer says:

      notice Bloomberg never has crap to say about Illegals, or the fact that he sends his people out to other states to break those respective states laws and federal laws?

  27. Rodin says:

    “…there are a lot of bad guys that go through the criminal justice system and it’s impossible to tell which bad guys are gonna do really bad things.”

    Here’s an early prognosticator: a ‘bad guy’ is a ‘bad guy’ is a ‘bad guy.’

    Shakespeare knew, 400 years ago, back in 1597. “A rose by any other name not smell as sweet.”

    1. DanTe says:

      and how long is your rap sheet?

      1. DanTe says:

        Bloom berg is Hitler hiding as a Ju. This statement is TRUE. If it isn’t, billionaire Bloom berg would have subpoena this site for my IP address and come sue me. In fact, I think I’ve even signed in with my NYC IP in the prior post. You stinking nazi.

        1. Rodin says:

          DaunTed, the more I get to know you, the more convinced I am that you’re a really, really twisted nutcase.

  28. FedUp says:

    The judge who released this jerk needs to be disbarred and taken off the bench. The last thing NY needs is some idiotic judge who thinks its perfectly fine to release a known violent felon who is also a fugitive. Was this woman drunk or something? I hope the cops family sues the judge personally and sues NYS supreme court to have her removed..

  29. Hate Hurts, Doesn't it? says:

    Spoken like a True Toothless Guido, go back to drinking your Grappa!

    1. Rodin says:

      Guidos don’t drink grappa. Too sophisticated. More like Bud light or Coors.



    1. richp says:

      He does not have to worry about it he has armed body guards.

  31. Richard says:

    No way of predicting the perp’s future? What about based on his past?

  32. oldwolf49 says:

    Why is it that the liberals always get blamed for gun problems??? Check you history, Dems don’t do gun legislation, it has ALWAYS been republicnas who make those rules.

    1. The Facts says:

      New York’s hundred year old Sullivan Law was written by a Democrat.

  33. Mike says:

    There is a simple answer to all the liberal nonsense-move out of NYC. I did and I have my new shiny pistol right by my bedside in sunny Florida! Break-ins in my neighborhood-zero.

  34. Aquila729 says:

    There goes Bloomberg again on his rant about guns. Like most stupid liberal politicians, he and his ilk simply refuse to face reality. It’s not the GUN you stupid moron, it’s the criminal your judge let out on bail the last time he was arrested for a serious felony! If this animal didn’t have a gun, he’d use a knife, or a rock or a sharp stick to commit his crimes. Stop appointing liberal bleeding heart judges to the bench and start enforcing the laws that already exist on the books!

    1. midi-man says:

      Maybe if Bloomberg would allow the honest citizens to own guns it might be easier on the cops. They would just come and start picking up the bodies of these thugs that break in to people’s homes.
      But hey what do I know! Gun control in NYC has always been out of control. I think that is because the honest hard working people cannot own one only the crooks. Wake up mayor honest people will not kill honest people they will just defend themselves.

      1. Rugbyball says:

        @midi-man, you know what a gun fired in Manhattan, or any public space indoors or outdoors in NYC would do. A bullet doesn’t pick and choose who it hits, it just keeps traveling for up to a mile or more depending on the caliber and load of the bullet used until it hits something, and more than likely that something will be a innocent pedestrian, driver or apartment dweller. We live in a densely populated area, this is NOT Wyoming.
        It’s been proven by the Feds, Military and local law enforcement, if you are not constantly trained in stressful firing situations you will miss your target many times more than you will hit it.
        The bullet will not just magically drop out of the air if you miss your target. You will have innocent causalities.
        That’s why gun control is so intense in most densely populated cities, not because of some liberal hatred to firearms.
        I live in NYC,, I am Pro Gun & I use to go to a local gun range in NYC, but I don’t want Joe Citizen packing heat on the A train with me, if he ever uses it good chance he will hit me and not the Thug!

  35. tinacotts says:

    hi just registered ,, tina

  36. NYC42A says:

    The mayor should be ashamed of himself for using the death of this fine officer to further his propaganda that deflects blame from his failed policies. This officer died because the crimminal who shot him should have been in jail.

    1. ski2xs says:

      Best comment so far!

  37. TOM says:

    Slotnick told CBS 2’s Dennis. “You know there are a lot of bad guys that go through the criminal justice system and it’s impossible to tell which bad guys are gonna do really bad things.”


  38. R. says:

    Andy Wilkins You’re a f*uckin ass hole> We’re you born stupid or did that happen recently??

  39. JohnW9540 says:

    I know, have Peebo turn the problem over to Eric Holder. He’s an expert on illegal weapons.

  40. tommy says:

    NRA members and Republicans alike should realize that the right to bear arms in the Consitution was written 200 years ago, when you really needed to protect yourself! When most guns are shot now because of suicide or criminal activity, it is stupid and unreasonable to hold onto the notion that gun-holders are protecting themselves. Sure – go shoot a deer in the woods every so often using an old school rifle, but you have no right to carry a handgun that can so easily take someone’s life.

    1. JP says:

      Epic fail you liberal troll:

      “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

      — Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

    2. JP says:

      By your own logic, you shouldn’t have the right to carry a pocketknife that can so easily take someone’s life.

      You think guns don’t work at protecting people?

      1. ski2xs says:

        Or the right to drive. . . ignorant wads like this will usually cry about guns, while at the same time do something much riskier like text and drive at the same time. Have to love the hypocrital nature of most these types.

  41. Meme Meyagi says:

    what is done about 7 million mooslime terrorists living in usa?

  42. Bobby D says:

    The New York City Police Department lost a wonderful Police Officer. The Community where he lived lost a true friend and his family lost a GEM. The Mayor has a good point—That being that the illegal–I repeat the ILLEGAL guns must be kept off the streets and these Liberal Judges should be disbarred. With that said, why can’t the law abiding citizen who has a permit in the State of New York carry there weapon in the City of New York. The State should override the city’s rules. I say this, that these punts who have illegal weapons would think twice before robbing someone. Shoot a couple of these punts in the nuts and see your crime go down. Bloomy, go after the illegals and let we the law abiding people alone. I have a permit and have every right to carry it in the City of New York.

    1. midi-man says:

      Take a few of these thugs out. Us honest people would appreciate it..

  43. BTillson says:

    Having the Mayor’s staff buy a gun off of craigslist just committed a crime. Was the seller arrested? Maybe those are things that need to be done by law enforcement. Changing gun laws will not do anything but put more restrictions on law abiding citizens.

  44. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says:

    The mayor needs to remember why the constitution writers included the 2nd amendment. Thomas Jefferson wrote (in the Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334):

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

    Now go back to making yourself and your friends rich raping NYC and the middle class Mayor Mike

  45. JP says:

    First off, my condolences to the officers family.

    This joke of a mayor continually cries doom & gloom about guns, but his agenda is simple – he wants all guns illegal. They quote 400,000 people were killed with “illegal” guns. This may be the total deaths by guns, but I assure you they were not all “ILLEGAL”. Also, most gun related deaths are suicides. look it up on Wikipedia. Of course that doesn’t play into the sensationalism that the anti-gun lobby is trying to spread.

    When they say idiotic things like “an illegal Ruger P95”, it makes them look like total fools. A particular gun may be illegal in a communist city (Like NY), but the gun is not illegal to buy in 99.999% of the world where guns are sold.

    In every city that has restricted gun ownership (Chicago, NY, etc), crime is higher than where gun ownership is not infringed upon.

    The mayor needs to remember why the constitution writers included the 2nd amendment. Thomas Jefferson wrote (in the Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334):

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

    By now I’m sure the liberals are throwing their hands in the air screaming about how the 2nd amendment is only for “militias” and it doesn’t apply to individuals.

    Here is exactly what the founding fathers meant:

    That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…

    — Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789

  46. Geoff says:

    Direct your rant to the NRA, The Republicans, The Tea Party. These are the organizations that promote GUNS for protections until they fall into the wrong hands that is. Condolences to the recent fallen officer and past ones too, but there are too many factors as to why guns are on the streets of America for you to blame the federal government. Start with your state and see if you can remove guns there…oh you’re just the Mayor…start with your city first.

Leave a Reply