With the recent passing of Rob Ingram, now is a good time to mention a recent independent documentary that is showing at theaters around the country right now.
A couple weeks ago, the Bijou Arts Theaters here in Eugene, Oregon showed "The Interrupters." This is a documentary which focuses on the work of a non-profit group, Ceasefire Chicago (which isn't affiliated with Ceasefire Oregon, despite the name).
The goal of Ceasefire Chicago is to treat gang violence like a public health disease. Ex-gang members, who have done time and seen the errors of their ways, go out on the streets and find out where there are flare-ups in gang violence. They then insert themselves, acting to mediate the violence and bring understanding between the two sides, preventing further violence and saving lives. They don't ally themselves with one side or the other, and they don't work for the police. In this way they are trusted by the gang members they are trying to save. Further, they stay with the people they mediate, long-term, working to reduce the behaviors that led to the initial confrontation. These ex-gang members are called "Violence Interrupters."
The film follows a number of these Violence Interrupters as they go about their mediations, peering into their lives and what led them to this heroic work, and the way it is working. Rob Ingram, having been a gang member in his youth, and having turned around and then led Portland's Office of Youth Violence Prevention, was very much like one of these Violence Interrupters. It's a hard business, and success is never guaranteed.
I am very thankful to the Bijou Theater for showing "The Interrupters", for allowing me to briefly address one of the audiences, and allowing Ceasefire Oregon to have an information table in their lobby during the showings. I had some good conversations with viewers of the film, afterward, and we got at least one new volunteer. With the rise of gang activity and shootings in Eugene, gang violence is increasing a factor here as well. Members of Ceasefire Oregon are actively involved in the Portland Gang Taskforce meetings; we may well need to have a presence on such a team in Eugene.
The pro-gun side likes to blame America's distressing gun crime statistics on gangs and drug dealers, so maybe this program is something that they can see as a solution to the problem, particularly since it isn't a program that emphasizes disarming the gang members.
Of course, interrupting the violence is only one part of an overall package of things that need done to reduce gang shootings. We must also do what we can to limit the availability of guns to gangs and criminals in the first place (such as by requiring background checks for private sales and doing more to stop gun trafficking), more support for organizations that work to reduce urban poverty, unemployment, and under-education (such as the United Way), better funding of police forces, and perhaps stricter sentencing for violent criminals.
I urge you to see "The Interrupters" if you get a chance. More cities need to have such an organization.
Yes, I told you about Ceasefire Chicago probably over a year ago, when I was arguing that, unlike gun control, there are things that actually lower homicide rates and save lives.
ReplyDelete"The pro-gun side likes to blame America's distressing gun crime statistics on gangs and drug dealers..."
We don't "like to" blame drugs and gangs, we blame drugs and gangs because they are connected to the vast, overwhelming majority of firearm homicides in this country. We're simply stating the facts the anti-gun side chooses to ignore.
"...so maybe this program is something that they can see as a solution to the problem, particularly since it isn't a program that emphasizes disarming the gang members."
Yes, I completely support this program, as it targets the source of the problem—the people actually shooting each other—instead of using sweeping legislation that mostly affects the people not shooting each other.
Of course, I have absolutely no problem with disarming gang members, drug dealers, those with criminal records and people who possess illegal or stolen firearms. That being said, the reason this program doesn't emphasize or advocate gun control is because they know through experience that it's simply not an effective means to achieve their goal, which is reducing homicides and saving lives.
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/418838
"Kennedy views bans, like the one Miller is pushing for, as a symptom of the problem, not a cure. "For people desperately searching for a solution, it seems like it makes sense," says Kennedy. "What they don't understand is that there are better tools that don't require law to implement, and are practically cookbook and off-the-shelf."
Chicago's Project Safe Neighborhoods is close to Kennedy's prescription (he helped advise on the project); Cincinnati's Initiative to Reduce Violence is its full manifestation. In Cincinnati, gun-related homicides spiked in 2006 to 89, more than double the annual average, since 1991, of 43.
Kennedy's research team unpacked what he calls typical trends: They identified 69 distinct street groups, comprising about 1,000 people. Of the 89 homicides, these 1,000 people—less than half a per cent of the city's population—were connected to more than 75 per cent of them.
Identifying the problem makes the solution relatively simple, Kennedy says. "If we change the behaviour of these people, we solve the problem."
Simple, but not easy. Still, Kennedy's methods have had impact: In Boston, in Chicago, and in Cincinnati, where homicides were cut in half the first year.
The solution lies not with trying to remove guns from the equation—the proverbial impossible task—but communicating to their users both consequences and options."
We must also do what we can to limit the availability of guns to gangs and criminals in the first place (such as by requiring background checks for private sales and doing more to stop gun trafficking),
ReplyDeleteThe post notes a number of things, all well and good, and wonderful, of course. Working to intervene in violence is wonderful work, and I applaud anyone who does so.
Please tell me, however, that you don't really think that passing a law requiring a gangbanger to fill out a form in order to to buy a gun would make ANY difference in reducing the availability of guns to gangs, do you?
If a banger is getting a gun to commit a crime, and the laws against the crime itself don't deter him, you don't really think passing one more law will make any difference, do you?
Do you also believe if we passed a law requiring the sun to stop rising, the universe would follow it? Because it will have about the same effect . . . .
@ Guav: Gun regulation does lower deaths and saves lives, however much you wish to ignore the data.
ReplyDeleteYou blame the "overwhelming majority" of homicides on gangs and drugs, and say it's a fact that we ignore. Do you actually have stats to back this up? Please link.
@ GMC70: tighter gun regulation can reduce availability of guns to gangs. One thing that can be done is to require background checks on private sales. Currently a gangster with a record, or anyone else, can buy a gun without a background check, ID, or paperwork, almost anywhere in the country. It doesn't require a shadowy underworld black market to do so. Requiring a background check will limit the availability because it will require they get a knowing accomplice for the sale, who will then be liable for the sale as well. This will drive up costs, and they will increasingly have to go to less lethal weapons. It will also create a paper trail to help track the weapon closer to the perp.
ReplyDeleteAnother regulation that can help is the requirement to report a lost or stolen gun (currently, gun traffickers can claim they simply lost their guns, and aren't held accountable, no matter how many).
Finally, registration of guns would make a tighter trail to track guns to the perp.
Your last argument is basically a variation on the "If you pass laws only the criminals will break them" argument that more laws won't stop the bad guys. This is a hollow argument, since it could be said for ANY law. Do laws against homicide stop murder? Do laws against speeding stop speeders? Passing laws allows a mechanism for finding and punishing criminals, thus reducing the incidents of the crime -- duh.
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteYou stepped in it this time.
You said:
@ Guav: Gun regulation does lower deaths and saves lives, however much you wish to ignore the data.
Would you care to provide the evidence supporting that statement?
Not just evidence showing lower "gun death" but all deaths. Seeing how you didn't qualify your statement.
The CDC found insufficient evidence to say ANY gun control law or combination of gun control laws have been found to reduce violence.
The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes
So where are you getting your statistics from, eh?
Requiring a background check will limit the availability because it will require they get a knowing accomplice for the sale, who will then be liable for the sale as well.
They do this already so what difference will a law against private transfers do?
They don't worry about costs -- heck they are criminals - they are using Other People's Money.
Another regulation that can help is the requirement to report a lost or stolen gun (currently, gun traffickers can claim they simply lost their guns, and aren't held accountable, no matter how many).
Given the abysmal clearance rates on crimes, how effective do you really think this is going to be?
Most likely it will be used just like most of the "gun crimes" -- as a tool to get a thug to agree to a plea bargain. The charge is then dropped -- at least for the thugs, the innocent gun owner gets charged because there is no other crime involved.
Many pro-gun guys seem to think it's an either/or deal. Either we focus on gun control or we focus on violent criminals and gangs and all that other stuff.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is we need to do both. We need to address the inner city problems, drugs and gangs and violence, AND we need to have stricter gun control.
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteWhy did you not approve my comment?
I was not impolite in any way.
Please address the issue. You say that gun control lowers deaths and saves lives (isn't that the same thing?) but you offer no evidence to support that statement.
I've researched this issue extensively and if you can show evidence, it would make me reconsider my position.
Now, I'm not talking about you moving the goal post and saying 'it lowers gun deaths'.
I'm talking about gun control lowering all deaths.
Inquiring minds want to know- do you have the evidence to back up your statement
One thing that can be done is to require background checks on private sales.
ReplyDeleteExcept, of course, that said law is simply one more law that gangbanger will simply ignore. Said law isn't really designed to keep guns out of the hands of gangs, since anyone with a lick of sense knows it has no practical effect on same. It's designed to hassle otherwise lawful gun owners. Please don't pretend otherwise.
Finally, registration of guns would make a tighter trail to track guns to the perp.
Not only no, hell no. We both know where that leads, and that's exactly the intent.
Your last argument is basically a variation on the "If you pass laws only the criminals will break them" argument that more laws won't stop the bad guys.
On the contrary. It's statement that ANY law we pass must
1) have the desired effect
2) be as a practical matter reasonably enforcable, including broad acceptance of the law in the intended population
3) not have side or external negative effects which outweigh the positive effects, and
4) not violate the Constitution
If a law has no effective means of enforcement, no matter how well-intentioned or how good an idea it may be, it's worse than simply ineffective; it takes up attention and resources that can be used other places, and encourages ignoring the law in general. Laws against texting and driving are such; how does one enforce same?
Moreover, no law can be effective if the population at large, in large numbers simply ignores it (see 55 mph law of the 70s, of Canada's long gun registry). Ineffective laws, no matter how well intentioned, are worse than no law at all, for they encourage the population to simply ignore the law. A bad law, or one which cannot be realistically enforced, is worse than no law at all.
Unless, of course, the goal is to harrass gun owners. But we've already established that.
@ Bob: "All deaths"? Why would you ask if laws regulating guns would in any way affect deaths not related to guns?
ReplyDeleteWould you expect seat belt laws to affect deaths not related to cars? Would you expect laws for safe food to affect deaths related to non-food injuries? It's a valid thing to want to see statistics about gun regulation saving lives (as in, after passing a gun-regulating bill, fewer people die from gun-related injuries), but you seem to suggest that you want to see a reduction in all deaths, including those not related to guns, to be convinced. Please clarify if I'm mistaken. If I'm not mistaken, then your requirement is ridiculous.
As for the CDC finding, I can't explain how they came to that decision. There are many studies out there that found regulation of different types to lead to fewer deaths from guns. Those results are in peer-reviewed, international journals, with good statistics and low error. Why the CDC felt they weren't valid is a mystery to me. One problem with reviews of that sort is that they are comparing a number of studies, each of which has different sample populations, assay parameters, and statistical measures. Comparing one to the other is problematic, particularly when you try to apply some sort of statistical parameter to compile them all. I've tried to do such things in my own work, and it can result in hair-pulling madness and error-prone results.
As for your last two points, all I can say is it's your opinion. Obviously I feel these will make a difference and you don't. But let me ask you this, about background checks on private sales: When you sell a gun to someone you don't know, how do you know they aren't a felon (or domestic abuser, mentally ill, have a warrant for their arrest, etc)? Aren't you at all concerned about about being an unknowing accessory to a shooting, or do you care?
Actually, Bob, hold your answer on that last question of mine (about background checks for private sales) and reply to it in my next posting...
ReplyDeleteBaldr,
ReplyDeleteNice song and dance. How about crime related deaths?
The point that I'm trying to make is you claim that "Gun control laws will save lives".
I've asking simply for the evidence supporting your position.
It doesn't matter to the dead guy or his family if the thug killed him with a firearm or a shovel, he is still dead.
The CDC examined many studies looking for any evidence that gun control laws reduced violent "outcomes"
The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.
So if there is no evidence to show that your restrictive laws will achieve the desired result, does it make sense to implement the restrictive laws anyways?
@Baldr "You blame the "overwhelming majority" of homicides on gangs and drugs, and say it's a fact that we ignore. Do you actually have stats to back this up? Please link."
ReplyDeleteConnect the dots, Baldr. Seventy-one percent of gang members are between the ages of 15-24. Unsurprisingly, we find out that, according to the National Institute Of Justice:
___________________
Who Is Most Affected by Gun Violence? People between the ages of 15 and 24 are most likely to be targeted by gun violence as opposed to other forms of violence. From 1976 to 2005, 77 percent of homicide victims ages 15-17 died from gun-related injuries. This age group was most at risk for gun violence during this time period. Teens and young adults are more likely than persons of other ages to be murdered with a gun. Most violent gun crime, especially homicide, occurs in cities and urban communities.
Youths, Gangs and Guns Juvenile firearm violence became common in many U.S. cities during the 1990s, and although gun violence peaked in 1993, it remains a persistent problem. Most youth gun violence is concentrated within a few urban neighborhoods (sometimes called "hot spots") and is perpetrated by gang members.
Wikipedia: Gun-related violence is most common in poor urban areas and in conjunction with gang violence, often involving juveniles or young adults.
US Dept of Justice: The impact of gun violence is especially pronounced among juveniles and adolescents ... the firearm homicide rate for the 15- to 24-year-old age group increased 158 percent during the 10-year period from 1984 to 1993. This contrasts with a 19-percent decline in gun-related homicides for those 25 and older.
One study involving 800 inner-city high school students reported that 22 percent said they carried weapons. An even greater number of convicted juvenile offenders reported carrying guns -- 88 percent, according to another study. Firearms are readily available on the illegal gun market, and those who are most likely to possess guns are drug sellers and gang members -- overwhelmingly young and male.
Center For Problem-Oriented Policing: Although overall U.S. homicide rates declined between the 1980s and 1990s, youth homicide, particularly gun homicide, increased dramatically. Between 1984 and 1994, juvenile (younger than 18) homicides committed with handguns increased by 418 percent, and juvenile homicides committed with other guns increased by 125 percent.2 During this time, adolescents (ages 14 to 17) had the largest proportional increase in homicide commission and victimization, young adults (ages 18 to 24) had the largest absolute increase, and there was much crossfire between the two age groups.
ReplyDeleteYouth gun violence is concentrated among feuding gangs and criminally active groups. In some cities, criminally active groups who are not considered “gangs” are major gun offenders. In Baltimore, violent groups active in street drug markets were involved in numerous homicides in 1997. Most of the murders occurred in or near a street drug market, and many victims and suspects were part of a drug organization or a recognized neighborhood criminal network.
Most Homicides Related To Drugs And Gangs, Says Police Chief: Flint Police Chief Alvern Lock said during a press conference on crime Wednesday that most of the 50 homicides that have occurred in the city this year have been related to drugs and gangs.
Walling and Lock asked the community to use the police department's anonymous tip line and take part in a program called Cease Fire that involves comprehensive training for community police officers and volunteers and partnerships with community and faith leaders.
___________________
I know you like to think that most homicides are perpetrated by middle-aged, white rural redneck "gun nuts" who got drunk and then shot their wife in an argument over NASCAR, but that is simply not the reality of firearm homicides in this country.
If you have evidence that firearm homicide in this country is not a predominantly young, urban male phenomenon—frequently connected with gang or drug involvement—then I'd like to see it.
Baldr Odinson said...
ReplyDelete@ Bob: "All deaths"? Why would you ask if laws regulating guns would in any way affect deaths not related to guns?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Because we've discussed this before in relation to suicide (and you never saw fit to reply to my comment) but even if we hadn't, it should be obvious.
Basically, after passing restrictive gun laws in 1991, the Canadian rates of youth suicide by firearms dropped from 60% to 22%. If you only bother looking at firearm suicides, like you do, then you would call this a great victory and point out how many lives were saved by the legislation.
But only if you ignore the fact that in that same time period, the overall rates of suicides did not change and suicide due to hanging/suffocation increased from 20% to 60%—a complete and total replacement of gun with rope.
That's why Bob's question is entirely relevant. If gun control measures only change the method in which people kill themselves or others, but leaves the overall suicide/homicide rates and trends untouched, then they have accomplished absolutely nothing worthwhile.
Gun control prevents gun death.
ReplyDeleteReally?
Explain Chicago, DC, and Baltimore. DC especially since their gun death rate is higher than neighboring Virginia counties.
@ Cargo: Who said gun control prevents death? It can reduce death rates, that much has been shown. As for death rates, they are always higher in highly dense urban areas than in surrounding suburbs and rural areas.
ReplyDelete