Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumSo, recently we have had a rash of gun-killings, presumably gang-related in our community.
The most recent was at 6:30 p.m. last Saturday evening. Someone was shot right out in front of a house on a fairly busy street in an area in which many, many children live -- less than a block from an elementary school and across from an ice cream shop.
With the help of people in the community, the police apprehended the murderer. Great work on the part of the police. That kind of work is what causes people in LA to respect the police (although they can go to extremes in bashing people who are exercising their First Amendment rights).
So what happens next?
The Neighborhood Council has voted to have cameras installed on the street on which this incident occurred as well as on another major thoroughfare in the area which has seen recent gang/gun violence.
I do not want to have my personal privacy invaded in this fashion. I walk and shop on those streets as do many others. This is not a downtown district but a local neighborhood.
I think we can safely assume that in a gang-killing, the killed as well as the killer have equal access to guns. Surprise is the decisive factor in deciding who is the killer and who is killed, not lack of access to guns. Loosening gun laws probably would not help and might endanger the small children who play and live on the street.
I know that if you live in a small town somewhere or in a gated community or among mostly middle-class or wealthy people, the threat of this kind of crime is not something you worry about. Murders are done in homes, neatly sheltered from a passersby on the streets or people living in crowded apartment houses.
But, this is the kind of problem that we face in large cities. And less often in LA than in many other big cities.
Some compassion please. Another young person was needlessly shot down. A mother crying. A family in mourning. Do I personally know them? Does it make any difference? This is a terrible loss.
What do you think about this?
What kinds of laws might prevent this? Do you think the surveillance cameras on the streets are the solution?
By the way, our prisons are so full that we can't afford to keep everyone who is sentenced in long enough to serve their full time. So additional prison time is not a good answer. Not unless we want to either raise taxes or steal the money from the schools.
What to do???
permatex
(1,299 posts)end the war on drugs.
Start properly funding education.
Jobs, jobs, and more jobs.
More community based policing.
Start repairing urban blight.
Just a few suggestions.
More gun control won't work, the only ones who will obey the gun laws are already obeying the gun laws, the criminals won't.
safeinOhio
(32,738 posts)to help end gun violence in urban areas bring more out state voters to the Democratic party than handgun registration would chase away?
petronius
(26,607 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2012, 11:12 PM - Edit history (1)
would be more likely, net, to chase away statewide voters rather than bring any in. So if we're limited to your two choices, the more important question would be which is more likely to do the most (if any) good.
Handgun registration might put a small crimp in the supply of firearms, but the policies mentioned by the prior poster - economic development, community policing, education - addresses a whole swath of problems beyond just crimes committed with firearms. So if we're going to spend some capital (political as well as financial), my vote would be for the latter option...
(On edit: Since you introduced the idea of handgun registration, and the OP is about Los Angeles (I assume, not Louisiana), we should note that CA already has a registration requirement for new and imported handguns.)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I am interested in what people think about the surveillance in what is basically a residential, but urban neighborhood.
We already have a gang injunction in place.
What to do?
petronius
(26,607 posts)of creepy and Orwellian. Even though technically there isn't an expectation of privacy on a public street, I think that most people do expect not to be watched when no other people are in eyeshot. Also, it seems that there is a potential for abuse when cameras become ubiquitous and the data collection/monitoring doesn't have some stringent safeguards built in.
Who is going to monitor those cameras? As I recall, LAPD has a pretty poor track record in maintaining the cameras they already have.
There was a segment on NPR recently (I don't recall which show or date) about cameras, and one researcher was describing systems that were monitored by computer - only summoning a human if unusual patterns were detected. That was one way to limit the privacy concern, but the difficulty was programming in all the vagaries of 'normal' human behavior. Other privacy protections I'd want might be leaving the cameras unmonitored and just recording to watch if a crime was reported. And, erasing the data after 48-72 hours or so. Cameras could also be left lidded, and only open when an alarm was pressed or 911 call was made...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)We're a small/midsize city. In the past few years they seem to sprang up everywhere. There's about 2-4 cameras at most of the intersections, residential included. It's really not a big deal. I don't even notice them anymore.
permatex
(1,299 posts)and use the money to help fund my suggestions, also, ending the drug war would free up billions also.
Look, I don't have the answers, but something has to be done and handgun registration ain't going to do it.
The main thing is jobs.
Oneka
(653 posts)Maybe not all the answers, but your first one would be a damn good start.
I try.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)So we can fund more gun buyback programs.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)so that is not the problem.
More community-based policing. We could use more community involvement, but our community, as is proved by the fact that the police were able to catch a suspect within days of the murder, is working very well with the police. That is a really good thing.
Jobs, jobs, and more jobs -- absolutely right.
Start properly funding education. That's so hopeless because many kids in our neighborhood just play hooky when they can. The alleged killer was arrested right near the local football field. Our high school does a good job, wins academic contests, etc. although average scores on tests probably are not that high.
End the war on drugs. I don't know whether this was drug-related. I suppose so, but I don't know for a fact.
As I said. I feel pretty certain that the gangs have no problem getting to guns.
The jobs proposal seems to be one that no one has tried. But I think we would have to have government-sponsored jobs. I don't see private industry expanding so as to need more labor in our area.
I appreciate your response. I feel that DUers need to know what is going on even in a city with a relatively low crime rate. A child could easily have been hurt. And the person who was killed probably wasn't that much older than a child.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)won't make a difference either way. That is what the best research shows. That includes the hated Kleck. Yeah, CATO stooge Lott says one thing, while Joyce stooges like Hemenway says the opposite. The ones with no ideological dog in the race says they are both full of shit.
Don't assume everyone in small towns are affluent. I grew up dirt poor in a small town, and I'm not the only one.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)backed by serious penalties.
Education along the lines of MADD. I would love to see a Mothers Against Straw Purchasing or the like, along with MASSIVE education using real case histories.
The stick would be that if a gun you buy for a felon is used in a crime, YOU are an accomplice to murder, armed robbery, rape, assault or kidnapping. I guess reasonably, that would require periodic inventorying of guns and reporting stolen guns to the police. Also, all sales, public or private, should require the seller to maintain a record signed by the purchaser with picture ID recorded, such as license number, CCW Permit #, passport, or the like. If you can't prove that you sold the gun or reported it stolen, that would be prima facie evidence of straw buying.
Yes, this puts a burden on the victims of gun theft, but I don't think it comes close to violating the Second Amendment. And of course, if less intrusive means can be found to achieve the goal of stemming the flow of straw purchasing, I would love to hear them.
A law like the one I propose should give women who like "bad boys" pause. Date him all you like, but buying a gun for him could get you some time in club Fed.
By the way, I don't believe that there is much of a right to privacy on public streets. IIRC, a Circuit Court recently ruled that there is a right to record police in public places. (Of course they are being paid by taxes as public servants, but I think it was a simple First Amendment case and didn't turn on that.) In any event, I can't think of why a person couldn't
I am a very strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but that does not mean that I don't sympathize with the plight of your neighborhood. And I do believe that there are ways, without touching the right protected by the Second Amendment, to change things for the better.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...it burdens already cash/personnel strapped police agencies. Such databases cost hundreds of thousands to setup and maintain and it still wouldn't impact the 5% or less of all transfers that need to be stopped. This country is addicted to prisons which is a whole other $78B+/year bag. Putting people in jail isn't going to help in the long term.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Even if I didn't have to go to jail, I might not want a felony conviction to prevent my buying a gun for myself, getting a job, passing a background check, etc.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Many wouldn't even care if they really needed the money. Already a federal crime to strawbuy, taking on extra penalties won't be anymore of a deterrent. Drug war has already proven that and just created a near $80,000,000,000/year prison population.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)haven't seen a MADD ad, don't know that cigarettes cause lung cancer, or wouldn't get the "this is your brain on drugs" reference.
Also, currently straw purchasing is very hard to prove. I am suggesting changing that:
The reporting could be very simple--an e-mail to a police mailbox that sends an automatic reciept would work for most folks, with a form to fill out at at the station as a backup for folks without computers. Neither sounds hugely expensive.
Even without imprisonment, a first time offender would lose the ability to straw purchase again. That should have some impact.
But beyond effectiveness, which would have to be proven in the real world, I believe that if I supply a felon with a gun I am morally an accomplice, and charging me as such is just. We shouldn't let murderers and armed robbers walk the streets because of the size of the prison industrial complex; by what moral reasoning should their willing accomplices escape punishment?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)ending the WOD and pardon everyone with for possession or even low level sales.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Also, currently straw purchasing is very hard to prove. I am suggesting changing that:
And that won't work. Mainly because if you accuse someone of strawbuying the burden in on you to prove it. Reporting is not that simple. It has to meet strict standards and legal review. Who is going to monitor that mailbox? Forms have to go through legal review as well. Can't just whip up a document in Word and call it good. Legal reviews involve lawyers and research, that means money.
Even without imprisonment, a first time offender would lose the ability to straw purchase again. That should have some impact.
Through what enforcement mechanism? And that would only apply if they buy from a FFL.
I believe that if I supply a felon with a gun I am morally an accomplice, and charging me as such is just.
If you knowingly supply a felon with a gun you are breaking a federal law. Somewhere in 18 U.S.C. § 922 you'll find that answer.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)That doesn't mean that killing people at will shouldn't be illegal. Nor does it mean that if killing people at will were legal, there wouldn't be a steep rise in deaths that would now be ruled murder. In other words, it doesn't prove that the law has no effect.
I'm sure it wouldn't be free, but what legislative effort is? My state has managed to allocate burden of proof on CCW. Carrying a gun without having a CCW permit with you is prima facie evidence that you are not licensed to carry. It then becomes your burden to prove that you are licensed. That is the law, whatever it took in lawyer fees and time.
You can't straw purchase from the trunk of someone's car, you can only straw purchase from an FFL. The enforcement mechanism would be that you would be inelegible when the FFL dealer did the mandatory check.
Yes, I already acknowledged that it's illegal. I am suggesting that we put more of the burden on the legal owner to keep them from straw purchasing. By providing a reporting mechanisma and reversing the burden of proof, you would, IMO, reduce the rate of flow. I am not aiming for perfection, just improvement.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Make gun access in the city tighter and they'll simply hop in the car and make a 30min drive out of town. Try and make gun access in rural areas tighter as well... and start losing elections.
Quite the pickle your town is in, JD
ileus
(15,396 posts)They're going to start popping up in every public place. As companies roll out higher and higher resolution cameras they will actually make public places safer if kept in proper working condition.
eallen
(2,955 posts)Serious question: when has gun control ever solved a gang problem?