In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Trump to Rahm
beneteau
Member Posts: 8,552 ✭✭✭
Published January 03, 2017 FoxNews.com
Get Chicago violence under control or feds will step in
President-elect Donald Trump said Monday that if Mayor Rahm Emanuel can't turn the tide on Chicago's soaring murder rate, Washington may need to step in.
Complete story
Get Chicago violence under control or feds will step in
President-elect Donald Trump said Monday that if Mayor Rahm Emanuel can't turn the tide on Chicago's soaring murder rate, Washington may need to step in.
Complete story
Comments
[xx(]
Most here objected to Federal intervention during the Obama years. The same position should be held during the Trump years.
Article 4, Section 4 states that the United States shall protect each state (upon application by the legislature;l or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. I am sure we can find Constitutional scholars that can twist this clause into Constitutional justification for Federal involvement, but context demonstrates that the clause is there to protect the sovereignty of the State, not the policing of the streets.
This is, however, what big government politicians do, Whether they wear the banner of Democrat, Republican, or Populist.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The Federal Government should stay out of local problems.
Most here objected to Federal intervention during the Obama years. The same position should be held during the Trump years.
Article 4, Section 4 states that the United States shall protect each state (upon application by the legislature;l or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. I am sure we can find Constitutional scholars that can twist this clause into Constitutional justification for Federal involvement, but context demonstrates that the clause is there to protect the sovereignty of the State, not the policing of the streets.
This is, however, what big government politicians do, Whether they wear the banner of Democrat, Republican, or Populist.
NIMS is already in place.
Not seeing how NIMS applies to common criminals.
Brad Steele
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
The Federal Government should stay out of local problems.
Most here objected to Federal intervention during the Obama years. The same position should be held during the Trump years.
Article 4, Section 4 states that the United States shall protect each state (upon application by the legislature;l or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. I am sure we can find Constitutional scholars that can twist this clause into Constitutional justification for Federal involvement, but context demonstrates that the clause is there to protect the sovereignty of the State, not the policing of the streets.
This is, however, what big government politicians do, Whether they wear the banner of Democrat, Republican, or Populist.
The rate of prosecution for violations of federal gun laws by the Chicago US Attorney is the lowest in the country. The US Attorney serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. A US Attorney with a focus on intense prosecution such has been done in other high crime areas is likely to have as dramatic an impact in Chicago as it has elsewhere.
I see nothing in the story that even begins to imply that Trump is planning to send the Army into the Windy City.
This predilection to infer nefarious 'Big Government' intentions based on somewhere South of nothing does little to move a discussion forward. But it does seem a popular pass time.
The Federal Government should stay out of local problems.
Most here objected to Federal intervention during the Obama years. The same position should be held during the Trump years.
Article 4, Section 4 states that the United States shall protect each state (upon application by the legislature;l or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. I am sure we can find Constitutional scholars that can twist this clause into Constitutional justification for Federal involvement, but context demonstrates that the clause is there to protect the sovereignty of the State, not the policing of the streets.
This is, however, what big government politicians do, Whether they wear the banner of Democrat, Republican, or Populist.
Exactly, another good post Don.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The Federal Government should stay out of local problems.
Most here objected to Federal intervention during the Obama years. The same position should be held during the Trump years.
Article 4, Section 4 states that the United States shall protect each state (upon application by the legislature;l or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. I am sure we can find Constitutional scholars that can twist this clause into Constitutional justification for Federal involvement, but context demonstrates that the clause is there to protect the sovereignty of the State, not the policing of the streets.
This is, however, what big government politicians do, Whether they wear the banner of Democrat, Republican, or Populist.
The rate of prosecution for violations of federal gun laws by the Chicago US Attorney is the lowest in the country. The US Attorney serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. A US Attorney with a focus on intense prosecution such has been done in other high crime areas is likely to have as dramatic an impact in Chicago as it has elsewhere.
I see nothing in the story that even begins to imply that Trump is planning to send the Army into the Windy City.
This predilection to infer nefarious 'Big Government' intentions based on somewhere South of nothing does little to move a discussion forward. But it does seem a popular pass time.
There was nothing in my response that suggested an insertion of the Army, Dads3040, nor was there mention of the US Attorney for that matter.
I would suggest that with Chicago's stringent gun laws, the role of the US Attorney in enforcing Federal gun laws would be redundant, provided Chicago's prosecutors and courts are doing their job.
I still fail to see how this is a Federal problem, and maintain that such a solution to this local problem should be avoided.
Brad Steele
they need "stop and frisk" and no plea bargains. 10 extra years for any crime committed with a gun.
While I agree the problem is funding prisons. It cost a lot to house inmates who have all kinds of rights.
They would need to build more prisons at huge costs to keep criminals locked up.
Gangbangers are taking care of some problems 762 of them last year alone
"Fools learn from their own mistakes. I learn from the mistakes of others"
Otto von Bismarck
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The Federal Government should stay out of local problems.
Most here objected to Federal intervention during the Obama years. The same position should be held during the Trump years.
Article 4, Section 4 states that the United States shall protect each state (upon application by the legislature;l or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. I am sure we can find Constitutional scholars that can twist this clause into Constitutional justification for Federal involvement, but context demonstrates that the clause is there to protect the sovereignty of the State, not the policing of the streets.
This is, however, what big government politicians do, Whether they wear the banner of Democrat, Republican, or Populist.
The rate of prosecution for violations of federal gun laws by the Chicago US Attorney is the lowest in the country. The US Attorney serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. A US Attorney with a focus on intense prosecution such has been done in other high crime areas is likely to have as dramatic an impact in Chicago as it has elsewhere.
I see nothing in the story that even begins to imply that Trump is planning to send the Army into the Windy City.
This predilection to infer nefarious 'Big Government' intentions based on somewhere South of nothing does little to move a discussion forward. But it does seem a popular pass time.
Should we consider: Nearly all federal gun laws are unconstitutional?
How about: whether the state gun laws are constitutional?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The Federal Government should stay out of local problems.
Most here objected to Federal intervention during the Obama years. The same position should be held during the Trump years.
Article 4, Section 4 states that the United States shall protect each state (upon application by the legislature;l or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. I am sure we can find Constitutional scholars that can twist this clause into Constitutional justification for Federal involvement, but context demonstrates that the clause is there to protect the sovereignty of the State, not the policing of the streets.
This is, however, what big government politicians do, Whether they wear the banner of Democrat, Republican, or Populist.
NIMS is already in place.
Not seeing how NIMS applies to common criminals.
+1
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The Federal Government should stay out of local problems.
Most here objected to Federal intervention during the Obama years. The same position should be held during the Trump years.
Article 4, Section 4 states that the United States shall protect each state (upon application by the legislature;l or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. I am sure we can find Constitutional scholars that can twist this clause into Constitutional justification for Federal involvement, but context demonstrates that the clause is there to protect the sovereignty of the State, not the policing of the streets.
This is, however, what big government politicians do, Whether they wear the banner of Democrat, Republican, or Populist.
The rate of prosecution for violations of federal gun laws by the Chicago US Attorney is the lowest in the country. The US Attorney serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. A US Attorney with a focus on intense prosecution such has been done in other high crime areas is likely to have as dramatic an impact in Chicago as it has elsewhere.
I see nothing in the story that even begins to imply that Trump is planning to send the Army into the Windy City.
This predilection to infer nefarious 'Big Government' intentions based on somewhere South of nothing does little to move a discussion forward. But it does seem a popular pass time.
Should we consider: Nearly all federal gun laws are unconstitutional?
How about: whether the state gun laws are constitutional?
We can consider that, Mr. P, but the sainted Justice Scalia told us that virtually all State and Federal gun laws are Constitutional. Doesn't change the fact that an aggressive prosecution for actual crimes committed will go a long way towards solving the problem without even resorting to local, state, or federal gun laws. The price for shooting someone or at someone should be steep. It doesn't really matter if it is with a firearm or bow and arrow, or nail gun.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The Federal Government should stay out of local problems.
Most here objected to Federal intervention during the Obama years. The same position should be held during the Trump years.
Article 4, Section 4 states that the United States shall protect each state (upon application by the legislature;l or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. I am sure we can find Constitutional scholars that can twist this clause into Constitutional justification for Federal involvement, but context demonstrates that the clause is there to protect the sovereignty of the State, not the policing of the streets.
This is, however, what big government politicians do, Whether they wear the banner of Democrat, Republican, or Populist.
The rate of prosecution for violations of federal gun laws by the Chicago US Attorney is the lowest in the country. The US Attorney serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. A US Attorney with a focus on intense prosecution such has been done in other high crime areas is likely to have as dramatic an impact in Chicago as it has elsewhere.
I see nothing in the story that even begins to imply that Trump is planning to send the Army into the Windy City.
This predilection to infer nefarious 'Big Government' intentions based on somewhere South of nothing does little to move a discussion forward. But it does seem a popular pass time.
Should we consider: Nearly all federal gun laws are unconstitutional?
How about: whether the state gun laws are constitutional?
We can consider that, Mr. P, but the sainted Justice Scalia told us that virtually all State and Federal gun laws are Constitutional. Doesn't change the fact that an aggressive prosecution for actual crimes committed will go a long way towards solving the problem without even resorting to local, state, or federal gun laws. The price for shooting someone or at someone should be steep. It doesn't really matter if it is with a firearm or bow and arrow, or nail gun.
If only we could get a ban on murder passed. Probably an idea that is too aggressive to get enough leftist support.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
If only we could get a ban on murder passed. Probably an idea that is too aggressive to get enough leftist support.
A good idea, Mr. P.
Perhaps followed by something called 'hate crimes' legislation so that the Federal Government can come in after a trial and fix the outcome, just in case the local jury gets it wrong.
Brad Steele
Besides the Zombies their are still law abiding tax paying citizens in Chicago that deserve crime control.
Voters may be out numbered like in DC and can't get the rats out.
As the Feds came to the aide in Selma so to speak so can they come to the aide of decent people living in Chicago.
We have heard for 8 years from CJ and the Ds that we need more federal laws to combat crime. Yet this is the reality (from the notoriously rightwing Mother Jones:
quote:Despite the amped-up claims that President Obama is just waiting to crack down on gun owners, a new report reveals that his administration has been pursuing significantly fewer gun crimes than the predeceeding one. Under Obama, federal weapons prosecutions have declined to their lowest levels nearly a decade, according to a new report from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research group associated with Syracuse University.
From US News:
quote:The districts of Eastern New York, Central California, and Northern Illinois ranked 88th, 89th and 90th, respectively, out of 90 districts, in prosecutions of federal weapons crimes per capita last year, but it wasn't always this way. All three districts fell lower on the list than they had been in years past. In 2010, for example, Chicago was 78th in federal weapons prosecutions.
The Left has been using the rising rate of gun crimes to demand tougher laws, while refusing to prosecute the violations of the existing laws. Dishonest. Underhanded. Craven. And far too often successful, because they play against the Chutes and Ladders Team.
We can have wonderful and esoteric conversations about which laws are unconstitutional and which are simply poopy, and just what a Constitutional Pansy Scalia was, or we can start trying to win the game. The constant claim is that the guns used in Chicago are being purchased by criminal and brought back from Indiana and Missouri. Under existing federal law, a felon who crosses state lines, purchases a gun or guns, brings them back to Chicago, sells them, uses them in crime...is subject to federal penalties of over 1,000 years in prison.
What would happen if we actually prosecuted a few of those folks to the full extent of each and every law violated? How long would it take before the usual race hustling poverty pimps and political stooges would start howling about the terrible unfairness of it all? Likely not long. At which time we can begin to ask why we have the laws on the books, if the use of them is such a travesty. We think the laws are unconstitutional, they think the laws are racist, mean spirited, and anti-unicorn. Sounds like everyone wants them gone, huh? Political Chess. And we put them in rhetorical checkmate.
We are in the middle of just such an effort here in this state. How well it will work is an open question, but I can tell you that I have caused several loud mouth legislators to stifle themselves when I show them the fact that in this state for the last 20 years, Felon in Possession is one of the top two plea bargained away crimes...while they are asking for more laws to "keep guns away from criminals". None of them, has an answer for why we need another law, when we aren't using the ones we already have.
At both the state and federal level, there is a push to use the behavior and rhetoric of the Left against them. I have good reason to believe this is what Trump is doing. He has some very smart people on his team, and they know how to win.
Mostly what I have is a diminishing level of patience for folks who want to kvetch about the current political situation, but when I ask them what they are doing themselves to change the dynamic, I get crickets. I have already been to the state capitol in Salem 4 times since November to testify before Legislative Committees about prospective legislation... and the session doesn't open until February 1st. I have a sneaking suspicion I have been to Olympia to help my neighbors to the North more than most who live here.
Whether the efforts of myself and others are successful or not, I have a sneaking suspicion those efforts have a better chance than this discussion on the InterWeb.
Plenty of precedent for Federal intervention when the locals can't or won't handle it.
Besides the Zombies their are still law abiding tax paying citizens in Chicago that deserve crime control.
Voters may be out numbered like in DC and can't get the rats out.
As the Feds came to the aide in Selma so to speak so can they come to the aide of decent people living in Chicago.
Maybe we can get the blue helmets and brown shirts too.[xx(]
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
We have heard for 8 years from CJ and the Ds that we need more federal laws to combat crime. Yet this is the reality (from the notoriously rightwing Mother Jones:
quote:Despite the amped-up claims that President Obama is just waiting to crack down on gun owners, a new report reveals that his administration has been pursuing significantly fewer gun crimes than the predeceeding one. Under Obama, federal weapons prosecutions have declined to their lowest levels nearly a decade, according to a new report from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research group associated with Syracuse University.
From US News:
quote:The districts of Eastern New York, Central California, and Northern Illinois ranked 88th, 89th and 90th, respectively, out of 90 districts, in prosecutions of federal weapons crimes per capita last year, but it wasn't always this way. All three districts fell lower on the list than they had been in years past. In 2010, for example, Chicago was 78th in federal weapons prosecutions.
This is because DOJ under Holder and Lynch are reducing the prosecutions of minorities, specifically blacks. This impacts their prosecution rate, and it has been going on for several years.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The Federal Government should stay out of local problems.
Most here objected to Federal intervention during the Obama years. The same position should be held during the Trump years.
Article 4, Section 4 states that the United States shall protect each state (upon application by the legislature;l or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. I am sure we can find Constitutional scholars that can twist this clause into Constitutional justification for Federal involvement, but context demonstrates that the clause is there to protect the sovereignty of the State, not the policing of the streets.
This is, however, what big government politicians do, Whether they wear the banner of Democrat, Republican, or Populist.
NIMS is already in place.
Not seeing how NIMS applies to common criminals.
What does "common criminals" have any bearing at all ?
NIMS was set up for terrorist response and coordination, natural disaster mitigation, etc. It was established for emergency management and incident response.
How do you see it as being applicable to the violence in Chicago?
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The Federal Government should stay out of local problems.
Most here objected to Federal intervention during the Obama years. The same position should be held during the Trump years.
Article 4, Section 4 states that the United States shall protect each state (upon application by the legislature;l or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. I am sure we can find Constitutional scholars that can twist this clause into Constitutional justification for Federal involvement, but context demonstrates that the clause is there to protect the sovereignty of the State, not the policing of the streets.
This is, however, what big government politicians do, Whether they wear the banner of Democrat, Republican, or Populist.
NIMS is already in place.
Not seeing how NIMS applies to common criminals.
What does "common criminals" have any bearing at all ?
NIMS was set up for terrorist response and coordination, natural disaster mitigation, etc. It was established for emergency management and incident response.
How do you see it as being applicable to the violence in Chicago?
First of all, do not slide into making me the author or supporter of any such decision should it occur.
Second, I think you need a better definition of incident.
"Incident: An occurrence or event, natural or human-caused, that requires an emergency response to
protect life or property. Incidents can, for example, include major disasters, emergencies, terrorist
attacks, terrorist threats, wildland and urban fires, floods, hazardous materials spills, nuclear accidents,
aircraft accidents, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical storms, war-related disasters, public
health and medical emergencies, and other occurrences requiring an emergency response."
You suggested, by stating that 'NIMS is already in place, that it was applicable to this situation.
Please explain how you see it as applicable in the case of the street violence in Chicago, given your definition.
It appears to be a significant stretch of both the letter and spirit of the system.
Brad Steele
Is this the one ?
Chicago murder rate is record setting - 4,331 shooting victims with 762 murders in 2016. If Mayor can't do it he must ask for Federal help!
From the looks of this INFORMATIVE thread,,like NIMS,, it is good to study but think the King of Trolling, Trump has cast more bait.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The Federal Government should stay out of local problems.
Most here objected to Federal intervention during the Obama years. The same position should be held during the Trump years.
Article 4, Section 4 states that the United States shall protect each state (upon application by the legislature;l or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. I am sure we can find Constitutional scholars that can twist this clause into Constitutional justification for Federal involvement, but context demonstrates that the clause is there to protect the sovereignty of the State, not the policing of the streets.
This is, however, what big government politicians do, Whether they wear the banner of Democrat, Republican, or Populist.
NIMS is already in place.
Not seeing how NIMS applies to common criminals.
What does "common criminals" have any bearing at all ?
NIMS was set up for terrorist response and coordination, natural disaster mitigation, etc. It was established for emergency management and incident response.
How do you see it as being applicable to the violence in Chicago?
First of all, do not slide into making me the author or supporter of any such decision should it occur.
Second, I think you need a better definition of incident.
"Incident: An occurrence or event, natural or human-caused, that requires an emergency response to
protect life or property. Incidents can, for example, include major disasters, emergencies, terrorist
attacks, terrorist threats, wildland and urban fires, floods, hazardous materials spills, nuclear accidents,
aircraft accidents, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical storms, war-related disasters, public
health and medical emergencies, and other occurrences requiring an emergency response."
Holy crock of bull pucky batman. That dodge and weave left you right in the path of the ball. Hit ya square in the head, it did. Did the eye go black?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
"NIMS is intended to be used by the whole community. The intended audience for this section is individuals, families, communities, the private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based organizations, and local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal governments."
When I went to NIMS training (and I took quite a lot of it)
We were taught that it is not limited or specific to any event. It essentially applies to allocation of resources and communication for any circumstances right down to a birthday party.
Essentially it is unification of resource management, communication and planning.
NIMS would apply to the City of Chicago, and or the state and Feds utilizing their resources to plan and mitigate the current criminal element quite correctly.
Whether you agree with it, or I, is not what will determine if an incident is declared.
Gun violence has already been identified as a public health concern.
Yes, it does fit.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2594804
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/03/508037642/study-says-gun-violence-should-be-treated-as-a-public-health-crisis
Even if we agree with the Jama study finding that 'when one lies with dogs, one may get fleas', conclusion of the study suggest a public health approach, not an Federal emergency management approach.
Conflating the two is, IMO, precisely the Federal solution to a local problem that was noted in my original post. It is instructive to note precisely how confined the 'epidemic' is, as specifically stated in the Jama study.
I still do not see the validity in your assertion that this localized epidemic fits the incident model inherent in the MIMS charter. Can you draw the direct connection for me?
Brad Steele
maybe trump will step in and replace rahm!!!!!!!!!![^]
Uh.....Trump can't do that.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Whether you agree with it, or I, is not what will determine if an incident is declared.
Gun violence has already been identified as a public health concern.
Yes, it does fit.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2594804
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/03/508037642/study-says-gun-violence-should-be-treated-as-a-public-health-crisis
Even if we agree with the Jama study finding that 'when one lies with dogs, one may get fleas', conclusion of the study suggest a public health approach, not an Federal emergency management approach.
Conflating the two is, IMO, precisely the Federal solution to a local problem that was noted in my original post. It is instructive to note precisely how confined the 'epidemic' is, as specifically stated in the Jama study.
I still do not see the validity in your assertion that this localized epidemic fits the incident model inherent in the MIMS charter. Can you draw the direct connection for me?
Don, I have provided you with the definition of incident, identified the conceptual framework for response, and provided just the most recent documentation that gun violence is considered both a public health threat, as well as a localized and identifiable outbreak and public health concern in Chicago.
Public Health responsibilities are outlined in Annex 8.
Security is Annex 10, I think.
It is immaterial whether you agree with what the geographic nature of the epidemic is, or is not. Interesting that you should mention that aspect, as GIS is a sub section of ICS practice in the NIMS framework.
It is a fairly straightforward issue, I think. If not, then perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the NRF and NIMS, as you may need more than can be briefly provided in this forum.
I think it is now incumbent upon you to provide anything other than your opinion that it would be outside the realm of a NIMS response.
Don asked if you could draw the direct connection. Your response could have been shorter. A simple 'No' would have accomplished the same as your usual verbal confusion.
Sho nuff.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Whether you agree with it, or I, is not what will determine if an incident is declared.
Gun violence has already been identified as a public health concern.
Yes, it does fit.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2594804
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/03/508037642/study-says-gun-violence-should-be-treated-as-a-public-health-crisis
Even if we agree with the Jama study finding that 'when one lies with dogs, one may get fleas', conclusion of the study suggest a public health approach, not an Federal emergency management approach.
Conflating the two is, IMO, precisely the Federal solution to a local problem that was noted in my original post. It is instructive to note precisely how confined the 'epidemic' is, as specifically stated in the Jama study.
I still do not see the validity in your assertion that this localized epidemic fits the incident model inherent in the MIMS charter. Can you draw the direct connection for me?
Don, I have provided you with the definition of incident, identified the conceptual framework for response, and provided just the most recent documentation that gun violence is considered both a public health threat, as well as a localized and identifiable outbreak and public health concern in Chicago.
Public Health responsibilities are outlined in Annex 8.
Security is Annex 10, I think.
It is immaterial whether you agree with what the geographic nature of the epidemic is, or is not. Interesting that you should mention that aspect, as GIS is a sub section of ICS practice in the NIMS framework.
It is a fairly straightforward issue, I think. If not, then perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the NRF and NIMS, as you may need more than can be briefly provided in this forum.
I think it is now incumbent upon you to provide anything other than your opinion that it would be outside the realm of a NIMS response.
How about the 10th Amendment, for starters?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Whether you agree with it, or I, is not what will determine if an incident is declared.
Gun violence has already been identified as a public health concern.
Yes, it does fit.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2594804
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/03/508037642/study-says-gun-violence-should-be-treated-as-a-public-health-crisis
Even if we agree with the Jama study finding that 'when one lies with dogs, one may get fleas', conclusion of the study suggest a public health approach, not an Federal emergency management approach.
Conflating the two is, IMO, precisely the Federal solution to a local problem that was noted in my original post. It is instructive to note precisely how confined the 'epidemic' is, as specifically stated in the Jama study.
I still do not see the validity in your assertion that this localized epidemic fits the incident model inherent in the MIMS charter. Can you draw the direct connection for me?
Don, I have provided you with the definition of incident, identified the conceptual framework for response, and provided just the most recent documentation that gun violence is considered both a public health threat, as well as a localized and identifiable outbreak and public health concern in Chicago.
Public Health responsibilities are outlined in Annex 8.
Security is Annex 10, I think.
It is immaterial whether you agree with what the geographic nature of the epidemic is, or is not. Interesting that you should mention that aspect, as GIS is a sub section of ICS practice in the NIMS framework.
It is a fairly straightforward issue, I think. If not, then perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the NRF and NIMS, as you may need more than can be briefly provided in this forum.
I think it is now incumbent upon you to provide anything other than your opinion that it would be outside the realm of a NIMS response.
It is anything but straightforward, Barzillia. You are taking the results of a very limited 10 year study that concludes, with numerous disclaimers, gun violence can be considered a public health issue. You are then making the leap that containing this specific and localize health issue rises to the level of an emergency as envisioned during the creation of the NIMS.
There obviously is not direct connection, and it is equally obvious when reading through the NIMS, that it was never intended to address this type of a situation any more than it was intended to cure the common cold.
You cite various aspects of the NIMS without providing the direct connection that would suggest it is necessary for the Mayor or Governor to request NIMS assistance, or that NIMS would even be considered if requested.
Obviously it boils down to opinion and interpretation of verbiage and of intent.
Suggesting that the NIMS was ever intended to address this type of criminal behavior ignores the underlying rationale for its very existence.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Whether you agree with it, or I, is not what will determine if an incident is declared.
Gun violence has already been identified as a public health concern.
Yes, it does fit.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2594804
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/03/508037642/study-says-gun-violence-should-be-treated-as-a-public-health-crisis
Even if we agree with the Jama study finding that 'when one lies with dogs, one may get fleas', conclusion of the study suggest a public health approach, not an Federal emergency management approach.
Conflating the two is, IMO, precisely the Federal solution to a local problem that was noted in my original post. It is instructive to note precisely how confined the 'epidemic' is, as specifically stated in the Jama study.
I still do not see the validity in your assertion that this localized epidemic fits the incident model inherent in the MIMS charter. Can you draw the direct connection for me?
Don, I have provided you with the definition of incident, identified the conceptual framework for response, and provided just the most recent documentation that gun violence is considered both a public health threat, as well as a localized and identifiable outbreak and public health concern in Chicago.
Public Health responsibilities are outlined in Annex 8.
Security is Annex 10, I think.
It is immaterial whether you agree with what the geographic nature of the epidemic is, or is not. Interesting that you should mention that aspect, as GIS is a sub section of ICS practice in the NIMS framework.
It is a fairly straightforward issue, I think. If not, then perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the NRF and NIMS, as you may need more than can be briefly provided in this forum.
I think it is now incumbent upon you to provide anything other than your opinion that it would be outside the realm of a NIMS response.
It is anything but straightforward, Barzillia. You are taking the results of a very limited 10 year study that concludes, with numerous disclaimers, gun violence can be considered a public health issue.
No, as I said I only posted the most recent paper. There are multiple ones available, not necessarily dealing with Chicago, but identifying the public health issues involved. As I also said, do not slide into trying to make me the author, or promoter, of any such study. It is simply what has been published, and identified by multiple public health sources. If you have any documentation to the contrary, then post it.
You may not like it, or understand it, or accept it, but that really is immaterial to whether it qualifies as a defined incident and public health concern under the system being discussed.
You are then making the leap that containing this specific and localize health issue rises to the level of an emergency as envisioned during the creation of the NIMS.
Once again, it is immaterial what your opinion of the original envisioning was. The working definition today is just that, and apparently you have nothing that refutes it or indicates that it would not be applicable. Its not about what you want, but what NIMS is.
There obviously is not direct connection, and it is equally obvious when reading through the NIMS, that it was never intended to address this type of a situation any more than it was intended to cure the common cold.
I think you need to study the terms being used. That is why they exist - to define in and out of a category, so one does not have to imagine and specify every conceivable circumstance.
You cite various aspects of the NIMS without providing the direct connection that would suggest it is necessary for the Mayor or Governor to request NIMS assistance, or that NIMS would even be considered if requested.
As I said, you may need to do some reading to get a better understanding of the matter, you are manifestly in error.
Obviously it boils down to opinion and interpretation of verbiage and of intent.
Obvious to you, perhaps, but the facts are the facts. Do some reading, and then come back.
Suggesting that the NIMS was ever intended to address this type of criminal behavior ignores the underlying rationale for its very existence.
And a fine opinion, indeed. But immaterial.
Comedy gold right there Barz. Well done![:D][:D]
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Simple really along with total surveillance with mandatory drug screens in the field in deemed areas to bring down the enterprise. No money with no users and you have nailed it.No profits.
serf