The 107 people charged with murder last year had accumulated a combined 1,065 prior arrests - 380 related to guns and 99 related to drugs.
The 234 people killed last year had a combined 2,404 prior arrests - 162 related to guns and 898 related to drugs.
That's an average of 10 arrests per suspect and 10.3 arrests per victim.
The numbers, from city police logs, are virtually identical for the first nine months of this year, with suspects averaging 11.1 arrests and victims 9.6. And the numbers are virtually identical to statistics from a decade ago. That might help explain why Baltimore, even with a much-heralded 20-year low in slayings last year, is still the nation's second-deadliest city in per-capita homicides, behind only Detroit.
This perfectly supports what several commenters have pointed out, that the problem is an inner city one. It also proves what others have said, most frequently Bob S., that what's needed is to keep these dangerous people in prison. Over at Man With the Muck-Rake, uptheflag wrote a bold piece about this very subject, pulling no punches about who's committing these murders.
I agree with all that, but I also feel gun access plays a part. If so many bad boys in Baltimore didn't have access to so many guns, the bloodshed would have been less.
Since the social and cultural conditions which lead to such abominable violence in cities like Baltimore are not going to be relieved overnight, I believe stricter gun control laws, applied nationally, would cut down on gun flow into the criminal world, which would then cut down on the numbers of murders.
What's your opinion? Is there anything wrong with addressing the social issues at the same time as we address the gun control problem? Can't we do both?
Police repeatedly complain that the people they put in handcuffs only return to the streets to do more harm.
I'd bet the police also complain that as soon as they confiscate a gun from one of these people they put in handcuffs, upon release he quickly gets another gun.
What do you think? What's the solution for cities like Baltimore?
Please leave a comment.
"Since the social and cultural conditions which lead to such abominable violence in cities like Baltimore are not going to be relieved overnight, I believe stricter gun control laws, applied nationally, would cut down on gun flow into the criminal world, which would then cut down on the numbers of murders."
ReplyDeleteGun control isn't going to work overnight either. But you know what will work overnight? Locks and bars. In fact they work instantly. Instead of instituting draconian gun regulation with the hope that it will work, do something that is proven to work: Lock them up.
An average of 10 arrests per suspect is ridiculous. So I propose a nationwide "3 strikes" law. People who are arrested more than 3 times for violent or property offenses within a certain period of time will be deemed career criminals who are beyond rehabilitation. There is no reason for them to ever be a part of free society ever again. They will be locked up for life. You can even send them to out of state prisons if crowding is an issue.
While that is a heavy handed solution, the results will be immediate.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou know what else would work over night?
Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground laws that allow the average citizen to defend themselves with lethal force and not face ruinous lawsuits.
How many of those murders would happen if the victims and the murderers had faced armed citizens tired of being robbed and assaulted and their property broken into?
Right now the risk factor is incredibly low. Most inner cities have strict gun control laws (how's that working out for Chicago, Detroit, LA, etc?) that effectively disarm all but the criminals.
The criminals face a non-hostile work environment.....a gun free zone for the victims.
Take that way and see if the thugs are as willing to try.
It works, look at the numbers
I believe stricter gun control laws, applied nationally, would cut down on gun flow into the criminal world, which would then cut down on the numbers of murders.
ReplyDeleteRight, because those in the "criminal world" are SO concerned about making sure they don't break any gun control laws....and will cease to be violent murderers if they don't have guns....
Is there anything wrong with addressing the social issues at the same time as we address the gun control problem?
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with that at all, which is why I advocate addressing the social issues (ending the "War on (Some) Drugs," implementing a justice system with real teeth for dealing with violent crime, etc., and dealing with the problem of excessive gun control, by repealing all gun laws.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteIf you succeed in implementing your draconian gun control laws, have you thought of what will happen?
While some stats might go down slightly ( I doubt it ) what about the other stats?
Aggravated Assaults - only 22% of the time involve a weapon according to the FBI. How many more assaults will we have because the thug now has the physical advantage and the victims don't have firearms for protection?
Rapes/Sexual Assaults-- only 7% of those involve a weapon. How many more people will be raped or assaulted because they didn't have access to a firearm to scare off an attacker?
If there was only a place that had implemented draconian gun control laws...then we could see what crime does as a result.
A few things to consider MikeB...
ReplyDelete1. There are more guns in America than people. The "9 out of 10" statistic is for LEGALLY owned guns. We have surpassed 300 million firearms in America.
2. Guns last a LONG time. I have 3 guns that are over 100 years old and in perfect mechanical condition. I have another gun that is 97 years old and mint.
I'll try and find a piece I read awhile back titled "The Remainder Problem" which deals with the fallacy of gun control being effective.
Found it...
ReplyDeleteThe Remainder Problem...
http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf
This is an excellent read for all people regardless of your stance on the 2A.
Spread it far and wide.
Tell you what...come up with a gun control law that criminals will agree to follow and you might have something. Of course, criminals already have a tendency to not follow the law, so why would they want to start with yours?
ReplyDeletePerhaps simply offer a $10,000 reward for every gun turned in. Of course in the short-term, you'll see a spike in violence as criminals murder and rob to get guns to sell back, but in the long run, you'll have them off the street! Oh, except the ones they decide to keep to protect all their newfound wealth.
IMPOSSIBLE! No one can legally carry a gun in the entire state of MD. (unless you're one of the extreme few lucky enough to get a permit, they deny 99.9% of em)
ReplyDeleteHow's that "Gun Free Zone" working out for them?
I agree with all that, but I also feel gun access plays a part. If so many bad boys in Baltimore didn't have access to so many guns, the bloodshed would have been less.
ReplyDeleteI live in an area of Western PA that has a very high level of gun ownership, CC permits, and gun crime.
Consider your "feeling" falsified.
In addition, will you please tell us, as you have been asked dozens of times before, exactly what law you would pass that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
Mike W. and cj, No one ever said the point of gun laws is that the criminals should obey them. Only you guys keep accusing us of saying that.
ReplyDeleteWhat we propose are laws which when obeyed by the law-abiding would diminish the gun flow into the criminal world.
HEY SPARKY!!
ReplyDeleteThe law abiding already OBEY the gun control laws!!
What part of that don't you understand?????
I mean seriously MikeB, this is getting ridiculous.
If the person willfully/knowingly transfers a firearm to a prohibited person, that is against the law.
Theft is a major source of firearms for the criminals and guess what SPARKY? It isn't the law abiding that aren't following the law in that case.
Please explain how making the law abiding follow even more laws will stop the criminals from breaking the laws!!!!
Background checks? The criminals will just use straw buyers to get around that. The law abiding did the right thing and the criminals get firearms.
NOTHING you have suggested will even cut down on criminals getting firearms, just raise the price and the cost for the law abiding
Says Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteWhat we propose are laws which when obeyed by the law-abiding would diminish the gun flow into the criminal world.
So you say--I imagine such laws would accomplish that just about as well drug laws "diminish the 'drug flow' into the criminal world"--very poorly, in other words.
What such laws would accomplish is to "diminish the 'gun flow' into the law-abiding world." I realize that you see that as a side benefit, rather than a deal-breaking, fatal flaw that we know it to be.
Good luck changing our minds.
Drug flow is always an interesting analogy. We have been trying to decrease the flow of drugs for decades now and dedicate a lot of law enforcement and tax dollars to this endeavor. In the 20s and 30s we did the same thing with alcohol. All the laws in the world (including a Constitutional amendment) did not significantly decrease the flow of drugs or alcohol. Sure, they may have had to change channels or avenues. This report on page 3 table 3 shows that between 1991 (before the Brady Bill and AWB) and 1997 (after the Brady Bill and AWB - gun control initiatives which were claimed to take guns away from criminals) the percent of inmates who possessed a firearm during their current offense INCREASED. The highlights table on page 1 shows that there was a shift from purchases (retail, gun show, etc) to family & friends (strawpurchases, stolen firearms?), while street/illegal sources remained the same. When taken together, it appears to me that the law abiding obeyed the new laws, the criminals didn't and the criminals were still able to get MORE guns.
ReplyDeleteSo, if a gun control law is found to be inneffective (i.e. it doesn't result in criminals having less guns), do you support repealing that law?
This question has been asked of you almost every thread and you continue to ignore it Mike, but will you now please try to answer it?
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly would the law that you would pass state that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
Please stop ignoring this very salient point and give a good-faith answer.
MikeB - You fight the war from the supply side and you'll lose.
ReplyDeleteSee War on Drugs, Prostitution, 1930's Prohibition etc.
The only way to "win" a war fought from the supply side is to reduce the supply to 0, which is impossible. It has not, and cannot be done, not for any product, ever.
If there is a constant demand for something there WILL be those willing to meet that demand, even if punishment for violating the law is death.
Even if you could somehow collect and destroy every single gun in the world (including police and military) you cannot destroy knowledge. You can't uninvent the technology and nor eliminate the raw materials needed to make firearms.
TomB said, "This question has been asked of you almost every thread and you continue to ignore it Mike."
ReplyDeleteEither you haven't been reading long enough or closely enough. I've answered this many times.
My ideas are all the standard gun control suggestions:
Background checks on every transfer.
A rewritten AWB which can be enforced.
Registration of all guns licensing of all gun owners.
There are probably some more, but those are the major ones.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteBackground checks on every transfer
Background checks are required on purchases from FFLs now -- criminals use straw purchasers to get around it.
What would be different about an individual sale?
End result - NO decrease in crime.
A rewritten AWB which can be enforced.
and Assault Weapons have been used in what percentage of crime MikeB?
It is such a negligible amount that the crime rate will not be affected.
What features do you ban this time? More barrel shrouds - you know the shoulder thingie that goes up?
The AWB banned cosmetic features on weapons that few criminals used.
End result - NO decrease in crime.
Registration of all guns licensing of all gun owners.
This is the most idiotic proposal yet. First, You do realize that the courts have already said that criminals don't have to register their firearms, don' t you?
So, who has to register their firearms; only the law abiding.
And how exactly does this stop crime?
Cops would have to recover a firearm in order to trace it, something the ATF is already doing.
Second, how many firearms does anyone own? Canada when they tried this same scheme suffered from massive non-compliance.
Are you going to let the cops search every home, car, storage shed, self storage facility, place of employment for weapons that may or may not be there?
Bob S., I said background checks on EVERY transfer. You responded like this:
ReplyDelete"Background checks are required on purchases from FFLs now -- criminals use straw purchasers to get around it.
What would be different about an individual sale?"
Did you miss the word "every?" Did you purposely miss the word "every?" Is that how you argue, Bob, purposely misunderstanding what the other guy says?
To answer your question which was very clear, the difference would be that no longer would a murderer be able to buy a gun from a lawful gun owner like he can now. The gun sellers would no longer be able to turn a blind eye and give the buyer the benefit of the doubt. He'd have to demand the background check. Simple.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteI missed nothing.
Did you miss the word "every?" Did you purposely miss the word "every?" Is that how you argue, Bob, purposely misunderstanding what the other guy says?
Do you not know the definition of a straw purchase?
The transfer from the supposed buyer to the actual buyer is already illegal. The person listed as the owner isn't really so there is NOT another sale.
Currently, a person buying a firearm from an FFL has to pass a background check, right?
If a person who is ineligible to buy a firearm still wants to purchase one...that person gives the money to a person who can.
The person who can legally buy a firearm illegally purchases it with the prohibited person's money.
Since the straw buyer isn't selling the gun to the prohibited person, there is no legal transaction.
That doesn't change if the law changes so every person has to undergo a background check or not.
The criminals will still use a straw buyer. If I check the background of the straw buyer, it will come back clean...I've done my legal and moral responsibility.
What that person does with it is illegal.
NOTHING, absolutely FRAKKIN NOTHING will stop the straw buyer from giving the firearm to the prohibited person.
Show me how that it will.
Your argument seems to be that the straw buyer will suddenly realize he/she can't transfer the firearm without a background check and not do it...is that right?