Ramsey has not even announced when and where they might be introducing Targeted Enforcement Zones against people illegally carrying guns. It makes not one whit of sense why there would be some grand conspiracy against 4 "activist" types for misleadingly complaining about a policy they are not even ready to unroll yet.

Just one question, do folks in this thread support stronger gun laws and if so how do they suppose the city set about the business of reducing the number of illegal weapons being carried on the streets, weapons that end up being used to kill people again and again in petty beefs that get out of control?

From my perspective the anti-"stop-and-frisk" crowd might as well carry signs saying "I Heart Senseless Gun Violence, Especially When Crossfire Takes Down Children and Innocents" because that is the end result of their mistating the facts and aims of "stop-and-frisk" - but hey thats just me.

You guys should at least know the theory behind the policy you seek to criticize. Take a look at the Kansas City Gun Experiment:
http://guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/programdetail.cfm?id=349

Targeted enforcement against illegal guns in "hot spots" with control areas where the same policy was not employed. There was no dramatic surge in other types of arrests but in the area where intensive enforcement against carrying illegal guns was employed the number of gun crimes dropped by 49%. Philly can use a drop of gun crimes by 49%, in my humble opinion.