Janet Lee

Janet Lee
Photo:Janet Lee, injured by a taxi partition.

Monday, December 28, 2015

Unethical Human Experimentation and Director, Division of Compliance Oversight at Office for Human Research Protections answer

·         Unethical Human Experimentation
I believe that the requirement to use interior partitions in taxis is a flawed experiment to discover IF partitions could be useful in protecting cab drivers from assailants. The endeavor to reduce cab driver murders failed. A study conducted by NCSU, funded by USDOT NHTSA and USDH&HS contributions evaluated the viability of using partitions in taxis. It concluded partition expenditures were outweighed by benefits in reduced assault injury. What was ignored was a 400% increase in cab driver murder and a 450% increase in injury from collisions. Some argue with me that this is an experiment. I feel it is. Partitions were never used for robbery or assault protection before they were used in taxis. I have much more. Is this of interest to you?
Steve Crowell
·         Dear Mr. Crowell, As we discussed in 2012, in general we only have authority over research that is funded by HHS. You may wish to contact DOT again, or contact your Senator or Congressperson.
·          
·         Kristina Borror Director, Division of Compliance Oversight at Office for Human Research Protections


I repeat, H&HS funded research on taxi partition use in the 1997 NCSU study by John Randolph Stone.

Thursday, December 24, 2015

New York Daily News 12/16/2015 - Fromberg - "Safety is not an issue, whatsoever!"

New York Daily News 12/16/2015 - Fromberg - "Safety is not an issue, whatsoever!"
That is obvious... by looking at the partition related injuries and death and the TLC reaction to them.

Taxi riders are cruisin’ for a bruisin’ — or worse.
The Taxi and Limousine Commission will delay a requirement that yellow cabs must undergo a crash test with the hard, sharp-edged plastic partition in place — a rule approved in 2013 after doctors told the agency that passengers in an accident face a greater risk of head injury.
Only two out of 15 yellow taxi models approved for the road — including the Taxi of Tomorrow, also known as the Nissan NV200 — have gone through a crash test with the partitions installed. Eco-friendly hybrid models, meanwhile, are exempt.
The rule was supposed to go into effect this December, but low compliance got the TLC to push it off until the end of 2016 to make changes.

Low compliance might mean hard, sharp-edged PARTITIONS
are failing the crash test. Maybe if the TLC considered the design I’ve offered for decades, the sharp edge/hard surface issue would disappear.

Doctors told the Daily News it’s common for hospitals to see taxi passengers with lacerations and broken noses, though there are instances of riders suffering from more severe head trauma.

Death is also one of the results of more severe head trauma.

“The vast majority of the injuries are not lethal, but they’re disfiguring and they put people at risk,” said Dr. John Sherman, chief of plastic surgery at St. Barnabas Hospital

“The vast majority of the injuries are not lethal?” How comforting. 

Sherman — one of the doctors who backed the rule in 2013 — slammed Mayor de Blasio’s taxi agency for pushing off the crash-test rule, which he likened to consumer advocate Ralph Nader’s crusade for reforms to dangerously designed vehicles.

It is no wonder that the laws inspired by Nader might come into play here. It is the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 that was inspired by Nader, his book – Unsafe At Any Speed, and Sen. P.Moynahans’ sponsorship of the bill, which passed unanimously.

The delay, he said, “would be contrary to public safety.”
“The forehead and the mid-face hit these change trays and sharp edges  and get serious injuries,” he said, noting that the Taxi of Tomorrow partition is padded and designed to minimize chance of a rider smacking their head into it.

Padding is a feature that has been included in my design from the start, because it is a federal requirement. The endeavor to minimize risk of contact is more difficult than making sure that IF IT DOES happen, it happens with a complying surface. Attempts to retain a coin tray or opening are guaranteed to introduce a hazardous protrusion or hazardous edge – both prohibited by federal law. My design has never had an opening or protrusion of any kind.

But taxi passengers risk more than a busted nose. Crash testing shows whether the partition would interfere with an airbag or affect how well the cab can handle a side-impact crash, according to Dr. Charles DiMaggio, professor of surgery and population health at NYU School of Medicine.

“The only way you can evaluate that is by crash test,” he said.

He disagreed with the TLC’s decision to delay the requirement.
“The message I take from that — I will be using my seat belt in the back seat of a taxi much more frequently, absolutely,” DiMaggio said.

MORE Frequently? Why would a doctor EVER not use a belt??

Cab Riders United director Michael O’Loughlin said the rule delay is a blind spot in the city’s Vision Zero safety agenda.
“Instead of delaying implementation of this important safety standard for yellow taxi passengers by yet another year, TLC should act urgently to expand this important safety standard to protect passengers in all partitioned for-hire vehicles in all boroughs,” O’Loughlin said. “Every passenger in every borough must have an equal right to safety in a TLC licensed vehicle.”
Taxi officials have tried to get cab passengers to buckle up in the back seat with public service announcements and supporting a law requiring riders to buckle up in the front seat.

Efforts to get all passengers to use seat belts are in place of efforts to get partitions into compliance. Rather than safe partitions, the TLC wrote that there would instead... be a tape recorded reminder to buckle up.

On March 28th, 1997 New York City Taxi & Limousine 

Commissioner Dianne McGrath-McKechnie wrote…

           
             "Yes, we are well aware of the potential dangers 

of  passengers ('who are' sic,) not wearing their seat belts 

hitting (their faces on) partitions in short stop circumstances.

            In fact, we are currently in the process of mandating that 

each cab's Talking Taxi Box include a message reminding 

passengers to buckle up.

            We are confident that this will raise seat belt 

awareness and use, and will significantly reduce this potential 

danger." - Dianne McGrath-McKechnie



I doubt unconscious seat belts are the problem. 


But much of the riding public likes to live dangerously, as just 38% of taxi passengers said they buckle up, according to a 2014 survey from the TLC.

If, according to the TLC - "much of the riding public likes to live dangerously" - because 62% don't buckle up, then the TLC will always give the riding public what they want, dangerous partition hazards.

TLC spokesman Allan Fromberg defended the delay in the partition crash test rule.
“Safety is not an issue, whatsoever,” Fromberg said.

It is a known fact that some injury and death to passengers has occurred to passengers as a result of coming into contact with the partitions during an accident "
Gordon Barton Excel Resources & Training

Matthew Daus – TLC Chairman - “These cars and the partitions that are in them... are 100 percent safe,”

The Taxi of Tomorrow — crash tested with the partition already installed — will be the car of choice to replace cabs that retire starting next year, along with hybrid models. And any car maker that wants their vehicles to join the city’s taxi fleet must meet the same specifications.

“Our goal...is to make sure cars with partitions are crash-tested,” TLC Commissioner Meera Joshi said in a statement. “And we encourage car manufactures by creating a market.”

Then why don't they ask the partition maker to crash-test the partition?
The TLC “creates” a market - with a partition requirement and they actually specify coin trays and openings with sharp edges. Just exactly what is Meera Joshi encouraging manufacturers to do? From what I’ve gleaned, the TLC wants car makers to crash test cars - that are not intended for taxi use - after an illegal partition maker/installer alters a once-complying vehicle, with an illegal partition.

August 29, 2008, Richard D. Emery, an attorney for the Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade, wrote to automakers including Nissan, Toyota, Ford, Honda, General Motors and Volkswagen requesting that they certify that their hybrids or alternative fuel vehicles are manufacturer-approved to be used as taxicabs and safe when modified with partitions and other TLC requirements.

It is puzzling that the MTBOT attorney would expect car makers to test another manufacturers' products.

HONDA
In a September 19th 2008 response to Mr. Emery, a spokesman for Honda said “Honda vehicles are not sold or recommended for use as taxicabs.” 

However, in a July 16, 2008 industry notice informing taxi owners which vehicles they can purchase for taxi use, the TLC lists the Honda Civic Hybrid as one of nine approved vehicles for taxi use.

Honda doesn’t recommend taxi use for their vehicles, but the TLC does.

TOYOTA
Another automaker, Toyota, the largest manufacturer of hybrids in the world, has not responded to Mr. Emery. 

However, a Toyota spokesman told the [tag]New York Times[/tag] on April 27, 2008, that “our engineers are nervous about it because they were not designed for commercial use.” 

Toyota doesn’t recommend taxi use, But the TLC does.

According to the article, “Toyota did not help convert cars into taxis because they were not intended to be driven so heavily.” Still, in the July 16, 2008 TLC industry notice, the TLC lists 3 Toyotas, the Prius, Highlander and Camry on its approved vehicle list — 1/3 of all approved vehicles. Several Toyotas remain in service as New York City [tag]taxicabs[/tag].

NISSAN
Nissan, which claims to be committing up to 200 Altima Hybrid taxicabs per month, refers Mr. Emery to a July 23, 2008 TLC letter that claims the partitions do not hinder side curtain airbag deployment.

Nissan offers no crash test results on Altimas that are modified with partitions and concludes its response by stating: “If you have an underlying concern with the mandate to use fuel efficient vehicles, this situation is a result of New York policies, not Nissan’s actions.”

FORD
At a September 10th 2008 New York City Council hearing, Ford Motor Company acknowledged that “there is an increased risk for belted occupants to contact the partition in a collision” for “any vehicle with a smaller occupant space than the stretch Crown Victoria” noting that it is “not unique to the Escape Hybrid” which indeed has much smaller occupant space than a stretch Crown Victoria.

Ford seems to be under the mistaken notion that a passengers' proximity, be it one foot... or three feet, to the partition, will somehow change the 30 mph passenger impact with the partition. It won’t.

Ford refused to certify the crash-worthiness of Escape Hybrid taxicabs outfitted with partitions, instead shifting responsibility to the TLC which it says “has an important job in making judgments that balance competing benefits and risks involving driver and customer safety in a unique operating environment.”

The TLC has an important job deciding whether or not to continue requiring, inspecting and approving illegal partition installation in NYC taxis. At risk is; passenger safety in a collision, traded off for the alleged benefit of driver protection from assailants. 

The actual benefit isn't driver protection from gun-wielding assailants - they can always shoot the driver from the back seat or at the drivers' window. The real benefit is; abatement of media pressure on cab regulators - regarding how competent the TLC is, protecting cab drivers from assailants. "Hey, we require bullet-proof shields!" 
All the TLC needs to do to continue the myth that partitions are good, is to compile statistics that ignore disproportionate liability insurance rate increases, disregard murder rate increases and neglect to include collision injury and death increases, and then boast about minor reductions in non-fatal assault rates.




Because of our limited testing budget, the 

number of vehicles involved, and the 

controversial trade-off of occupant safety 

for the safety of the vehicle operator 

from assailants, we have no plans to test 

the involved vehicles for violations...




Francis Armstrong USDOT NHTSA Motor Vehicle 

Safety Compliance Enforcement Section Director - 

June 22, 1984



GENERAL MOTORS
General Motors also refused to certify the crash-worthiness of its Chevy Malibu Hybrid taxicab when modified with a partition or other TLC requirements. In a letter to Mr. Emery dated September 25th, 2008, GM wrote “your client’s concerns about the taxicab partitions required by the TLC should be addressed to the TLC.” GM was silent about the Saturn Vue Hybrid, which also appears on the TLC’s approved vehicle list.

VOLKSWAGON
Volkswagen, which produces a clean diesel Jetta that appears on the TLC approved list, was also asked to certify the safety, suitability and crash-worthiness of its TLC-approved hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles when modified with partitions and placed into service as taxicabs but, to date, has not responded.


THE NYC TLC
The TLC has confirmed that it does not crash test hybrid taxicabs modified with partitions and says it relies, in large part, on federal testing to assert the safety of hybrid taxicabs. However, it has also been established that there are no federal crash tests for hybrid taxicabs modified with partitions — nor are there front or rear crash tests in unmodified hybrids for adult rear occupants, which comprise the majority of taxi passengers.

drivoli@nydailynews.com





 I have been screaming about the connected dots of partition


 design flaw, partitions in taxis requirements, partition injury 


& death, disproportionate insurance increases and 


failure of municipal, state and federal regulators'  to correctly 


address the issue, for over 35 years. 




The one dot that never gets connected by anyone except me 

is the partition maker. Car makers won't crash test a car 

screwed up by the TLC with an illegal partition. Most car 

makers assert that their products are not intended for taxi 

use in the first place. How is it that the arrows never get 

pointed at the partition makers? They are in collusion with 

the TLC. 




The objective is to disregard passenger safety - for hollow 

allegations of driver protection from assailants. Neither has 

ever been concerned about federal compliance. I prompted 

USDOT NHTSA "letters of warning" to taxi regulators and 

partition makers in 1984, about the need for compliance and 

certification of such. 


The TLC's first reaction to my concerns was to come up with 

the idea of 'the talking taxi box'. This would have a recorded 

advisement to 'buckle up', or ostensibly any injuries or death 

resulting from contact with the illegal partition is "ON" the 

victim. That is absurd. 




FIX THE PARTITION FLAWS! I know how, I've done it. I've

 offered a complying design for over 30 years now. 


see 


steven-crowells.blogspot.com and sign the petition.mandate-yellow-cabs-article-1.2467282

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Assorted quotes

Alan L. Fuchsberg, a Manhattan lawyer who has represented dozens of people injured in taxi accidents, said the Mayor's plan "certainly would be an improvement, but I don't think it's enough." Noting that other business concerns, like trucking companies and commercial buildings, typically have $500,000 to $1 million in liability insurance, he said: "The concern is that a seriously injured person would still in no way be compensated for the full extent of their injuries." 5/24/98 NY Times

In New York City and Boston, taxi passengers were very frequently exceeding the maximum liability limits of the taxis' insurance coverage, in losses since partition installation mandates were enacted. But, rather than address the causes of the radical increases in bodily injury due to partition hazards, the reflex response is to, instead, raise the minimum liability limits on the taxis' insurance policy.                                                                                                                                                                         
Dr. Seth Manoach, "The plexiglas partition that separates the front and back of the cab, protruding change dish, and metal border can cause serious injury in an accident."
"Sit in one of the seats with shoulder and lap belts. The middle seats don't have them and during a front-end collision, your head is going to come forward and hit the barrier."

"With partitions, you can't get access to the driver ...," Chief of Patrol John Scanlon said. "You can't stab or stick a gun to the driver's head from behind."
NY Daily News 3/23/2000

Chief John Scanlon needs to see this Here.




"If you are asking how many crimes-in-progress were specifically thwarted by
the partition, I am afraid I do not have such an answer."
Dianne McGrath-McKechnie, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, March 28, 1997

Of course she doesn't have an answer. That is progressive government at work. Implement a requirement and never keep track of whether it works or not. 

"There is absolutely no question that shields will not provide much protection against those determined to kill the driver.
It is a known fact that some injury and death to passengers has occurred to passengers as a result of coming into contact with the partitions during an accident "
Gordon Barton Excel Resources & Training

"Until the Times piece, I hadn't realized that an average of 40 people per year are killed in taxi accidents. In addition, thousands of other people are maimed and injured each year due to     various acts of stupidity."

"When a New YorkTimes reporter, Andy Newman, asked the Taxi and Limousine Commission forspecific statistics about taxi accidents, he was informed that the TLC”does not routinely keep track of accidents involving cabs.” WHAT ?!?!I guess the TLC is too busy with voice boxes and other P.R.  nonsense tobe worried about such trivial little issues as LIFE and DEATH. After all,their annual budget is only $50 million per year, so you can’t expect themto do everything."
Bernard Michael Higgins-Taxitalk

 

02/15/1984.
Boston Globe
Boston Police Commissioner. Joseph M. Jordan’s decision to allow cab drivers who have firearm licenses to carry guns drew skeptical comment yesterday from the managers of six of the city’s seven largest cab companies and Mayor Raymond L. Flynn.
Cab company managers said the decision would not deter murders, and Flynn, who has repeatedly asked Jordan to resign, said he plans to meet with the commissioner to review the decision.

"Driver safety objectives should not be considered in isolation from passenger service objectives"…  a word of caution.  We should all think about who is ultimately responsible for the safety of a taxi driver.  Is it the driver?  The company or taxi owner?  Or a regulatory agency?  Should the taxi industry take care of its own?  Or should a regulatory agency adopt a "parental" approach to the welfare of taxi drivers.  If a regulatory agency mandates safety equipment, it accepts some responsibility and companion liability if a safety device fails to protect a driver.  And unfortunately no safety device or method guarantees full protection."
Dec. 6, 1996 speech on Taxi Driver Safety, by Prof. John Stone

"It was not clear why (cab passenger) Penn, who was sitting in the back seat, was killed in the head-on crash while the driver suffered much less serious injuries. Initial reports said Penn was trapped beneath the taxi’s plexiglass partition." 6/14/98 NY Daily News

"Here’s how it will work: A minority officer will try to hail a cab.  His of her white counterpart will be standing a short distance away. If the cabbie bypasses the minority cop for the white one, he will be ticketed, his license suspended and his car taken away."
Rudolph Guiliani 11/12/99




Saturday, December 05, 2015

Mass DOR Tax Inspector Story

A guy left his Blackberry in my cab in New Orleans a few years ago. The "guy" was the top administrator for the California state lottery. There were codes and stuff in the PDA, potentially worth... who knows how much! I think he was happy when he got his thing back. 
YoYo Ma got a bass fiddle returned by a cab driver, Yitzak Pearlman also left a Stradivarious in a NYC cab. It got returned, also. 

Neither of  those drivers, nor I, were contacted about the missing items. I called a number listed in the guys' PDA (his brother in NJ), told him I had the PDA. About two hours later, while waiting at Commanders' Palace he called. He demonstrated his pleasure with cash. Plenty of cash and asked if I wanted more. I declined. 

I have a better story though. The MA Dept of Revenue had an inspector who left a mans' purse in my cab with $6,000 in Travellers Checks in it. The weirdest part (up to that point) of it was this... ALL OF THE STUBS WERE IN THE PADS OF CHECKS!!! The bank had no copy! These were incredibly LIQUID checks. They had to be bribe assets.
I went back to Logan Airports' State Police "F" Troop Barracks with the purse. Handed it to the trooper at the desk, turned to leave... but was loudly ordered to return to the desk. I did. He said wait. I did. He kept saying to the guy on the phone; "Yeah, that's here, yeah, that's here", about four times. He hung up and then said to me; "You knew we were looking for , didn't you?" 
I said; "No. If you WERE, how did I get through the taxi 'pool' without anybody saying anything? I didn't see any cops there (I bought a 'pool ticket' between the time I dropped the passenger and the time I went to the barracks, so that I could be figuratively 'back in the taxi line' while turning in the purse). 
He just said; "You certainly wouldn't have turned it in if you thought we weren't LOOKING FOR YOU! You can go now." Chee! Tanks! I should have brought it to the state attorney general. Those checks were so liquid they were illegal and untraceable. If I had THAT would have been one unhappy, unemployed, convicted, Mass DOR tax inspector.




Wednesday, December 02, 2015

Unintended consequences of flawed law, regulation and policy



Forest fires vs wild fires
My whole childhood I can remember Smoky the Bear saying “Only you can prevent forest fires!” But it was learned that prevention of forest fires actually was a bad thing. It allowed for excessive ground cover which provided too much fuel for the once ‘limited’ burn to now become a ‘Wild Fire’ causing more damage than the limited natural burns that will occur without interference. So now Smoky says “Only you can prevent wild fires.” This took 100 years to notice.

Insulation and cigarette bans vs toxic mold
Prior to the Oil Embargo of the 1970’s there was less incentive to insulate buildings as well. Prior to popular bans on cigarette smoking indoors of many buildings, there was a less hospitable environment for toxic molds to develop. Add to that less exchange of outside air with better insulation and we create a more hospitable environment for currently blossoming, previously rare toxic molds.

DDT vs. Death by Malaria
Robert J. Cihak, M.D.
April 28, 2004


The pervasive superstition that DDT is utterly noxious remains immune to scientific evidence to the contrary. These myths are much more persistent in some minds than DDT is in the environment.
That DDT prevented 500 million deaths by 1970 and that the banning of its use in poor countries has resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths holds no sway with true believers in this doctrine.
Where did this myth originate?
In 1962 Rachel Carson published "Silent Spring," arguably the most important American book since "Uncle Tom's Cabin" kicked off the Civil War. "Silent Spring," with its apocalyptic claims of the effects of the insecticide DDT, became a founding tract of the environmentalist movement.
Many of her claims are now known to be the result of sloppy science, or worse. But the superstition that DDT is always and forever evil persists in too many minds, along with murderous disregard for its life-saving properties.
In a remarkable article in the April 11 New York Times Magazine, "What the World Needs Now Is DDT," Tina Rosenberg, a Times editorial writer, describes how DDT should be used more extensively in Africa, and points out why it is not. She writes:
"... South Africa is beating the disease with a simple remedy: spraying the inside walls of houses in affected regions once a year. ... [S]prayed in tiny quantities inside houses - the only way anyone proposes to use it today - DDT is most likely not harmful to people or the environment. Certainly, the possible harm from DDT is vastly outweighed by its ability to save children's lives."
So, why is DDT not being used in this benign manner, let alone more aggressively against malarial mosquito breeding areas? The answer: Wealthy Western funders won't allow it. And they won't allow it because of a combination of outdated science and pseudo-science, coupled with a truly breathtaking faux morality.
Ms. Rosenberg notes "wealthy countries' fear of a double standard" and quotes E. Anne Peterson, assistant administrator for global health at the U.S. Agency for International Development:
"For us to be buying and using in another country something we don't allow in our own country raises the specter of preferential treatment. We certainly have to think about 'What would the American people think and want?' and 'What would Africans think if we're going to do to them what we wouldn't do to our own people?'"
What would Americans want? If millions of Americans were dying from malaria, we'd be spraying DDT furiously.
This current "beggar thy neighbor" approach reflects a kind of Western imperial arrogance - and ignorance - that would rather let people suffer and die than face the fact that some secular pieties may be wrong.
But a deeper hypocrisy is involved. A wetland, it has been said (not entirely in jest), is a swamp that certain elites care about. Apparently, this holds true even when the swamp is a breeding ground for a disease that kills millions of people and when the problem can be cured without hurting the swamp; there's no limit on the ability to ignore suffering as long as banning DDT provides the swamp-lovers with their jollies.
Ms. Rosenberg notes her surprise when she reread "Silent Spring" in preparation for writing her article: "In her 297 pages, Rachel Carson never mentioned the fact that by the time she was writing, DDT was responsible for saving tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of lives."
This would be equivalent to writing a book about the horrors of penicillin poisoning, without mentioning the good it does. Carson's silence about DDT's life-saving power was irresponsible.
Even today, true believes ignore the testimony and scientific evidence presented by real scientists. J. Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Biological Sciences at San Jose State University, testified at the 1971-1972 EPA hearings on DDT when the EPA was considering its dreadful blanket DDT ban. He has been telling the truth about DDT ever since. For many more scientific facts and demystified myths (see 100 things you should know about DDT ).
Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" launched the modern environmental movement by spinning tales about the intricacy and inter-connectedness of ecosystems in a way that laypersons could grasp. This might have been good if it hadn't been linked with false dogmas that have proven utterly disastrous, such as the myth that human beings are destroying the planet with DDT.
The truth is that discriminating use of DDT kills mosquitoes and eradicates malaria wherever it's adequately used. It does not destroy our environment; it saves lives. It's time to let go of a phony belief system lethal to millions of less-affluent humans elsewhere.


Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a Senior Fellow and Board Member of the Discovery Institute and a past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Copyright © Newsmax.com


Partitions vs Taxi driver murders
Prior to Partition use mandates most robberies were not done with a gun. It wasn’t necessary. Now, with partitions, most robberies are done with a gun. Murder rates rise radically, with partition use mandates. It's time to let go of a phony belief system lethal to millions of less-affluent humans elsewhere. It's time to let go of a phony belief system lethal to cab drivers.
The Washington, D.C. Police chief at one time endorsed the disarming of cab drivers, now endorses the population be armed.

Cab Drivers Shouldn't Carry Concealed Weapons, D.C. Police Chief Says in October, changes in November


ASSOCIATED PRESS

FILE In this Nov. 30, 2010 file photo, Washington Police Chief
Cathy Lanier speaks at the National Press Club in Washington.
 (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)
D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier says taxi drivers should be
banned from carrying concealed handguns.
Lanier  made the recommendation during a hearing on a bill
that would allow District of Columbia residents and visitors
to get concealed handgun permits for the first time in nearly
40 years.
At Lanier's urging, the bill also includes restrictions on
carrying guns near dignitaries or at high-profile events. But
she says carrying a weapon should be  restricted areas
where carrying a weapon would be prohibited to the grounds
and parking lots surrounding government buildings.
The bill has widespread support from the District's political
leaders, and Democratic Mayor Vincent Gray has already
signed a temporary version. But Thursday marks the first
public hearing on the bill. Advocates for gun rights and gun
control are also scheduled to testify.
Gun-rights advocates say the bill doesn't fully comply with the
Second Amendment because it requires people to show a
reason why they need to carry a gun for self-defense.
Published at 5:46 AM EST on Oct 16, 2014



One month later after the Paris attack...


In a 60 Minutes interview scheduled to air 
November 22, Washington DC police chief 
Cathy Lanier said taking out the gunmen in 
a Paris-style attack is the “best option” for 
citizens between the time they call 911 and 
the moment police arrive.
Lanier said citizens basically have three options–they can 
“run, hide, or fight.” And she said choosing to “take the 
gunman out” is the best option if the citizen is in a position 
to do so.
According to CBS News, Lanier said, “If you’re in a position 
to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, 
it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there.
” She admitted that such advice runs “counterintuitive” to 
what police have been saying for decades, but she stressed 
that the situation has changed.
Lanier said: “We always tell people, ‘Don’t…don’t take action. 
Call 911. Don’t intervene in the robbery’…we’ve never told 
people, ‘Take action.’ [But] it’s a different…scenario.”
She also made clear that she does not want Americans to be 
paranoid, but she does want them to be alert and prepared.
In January 2013, Breitbart News reported that Milwaukee County 
Sheriff David Clarke asked county residents to get a gun and 
familiarize themselves with it so they could use it to defend 
their lives between the time they dialed 911 and the time police 
arrived.

Since that time, other law enforcement and public figures have 
urged citizens to arm up for self-defense; advising against the 
old tactic of compliance and passivity in the face of life-threatening 
danger.

In August of this year, Louisiana Sheriff Jeff Wiley “urged women to 
get concealed-weapons permits” so they could keep a gun with them 
with which to defend their lives.

And on October 2–just one day after the Umpqua Community 
College gunman allegedly lined up victims and questioned them 
about their religion before killing them–Tennessee Lt. Governor Ron 
Ramsey (R) urged “Christians” to get a concealed carry permit in 
order to defend their lives against religiously-motivated attacks, 
according to The Washington Times.

DC police chief Lanier is now the most recent law enforcement 
figure to break with the old pacifist dogma.
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/22/dc-police-chief-best-
option-citizens-take-paris-style-attackers/?utm_source=facebook&utm_
medium=social

After the Paris attacks last month, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said“ A lot of Detroiters have CPLs (concealed pistol licenses), and the same rules apply to terrorists as they do to some gun-toting thug. If you’re a terrorist, or a carjacker, you want unarmed citizens.”

Add to that list 

Sheriff Paul J. Van Blarcum from Ulster County, located about 2 hours north of New York City. On his Facebook page yesterday, Blarcum posted: “In light of recent events that have occurred in the United States and around the world I want to encourage citizens of Ulster County who are licensed to carry a firearm to please do so,” wrote Sheriff Paul J. Van Blarcum in a Facebook post. “I urge you to responsibly take advantage of your legal right to carry a firearm. To ensure the safety of yourself and others, make sure you are comfortable and proficient with your weapon, and knowledgeable of the laws in New York State with regards to carrying a weapon and when it is legal to use it.”

Bullet-resistant vests vs head-shot murders of police officers
Prior to the popularity of bullet-resistant vests the frequency of head shots was much lower.

Car Alarms vs car jackings

Prior to car alarms cars were stolen when the owner wasn’t around. Now cars get stolen by car-jackings. Increasing the risk to the theft victim.