Friday, August 6, 2010

Indianapolis Gun Violence

The Indy Star published an article about the problem which pulls no punches: Experts say there is no formula to curb the violence.

Experts who study that question wish they could give an easy answer, that something as simple as pouring money into police overtime would stem the sort of carnage that ripped through a birthday barbecue early Tuesday, left a 3-year-old girl dead last week and injured 10 people after an Indiana Black Expo event last month.

But those experts say nobody can pinpoint a dependable formula to stamp out gun violence, despite decades of relentless efforts by police and communities in Indianapolis and other cities.

New York, Boston and other places have seen hopeful signs of progress, but few initiatives have been documented closely enough to provide a road map for other cities.

In this rather lengthy article the one thing that was not mentioned is getting rid of some of the guns, or getting rid of most of the guns. Wouldn't that cut down on the gun crime?

In examining the problem in Indiana, shouldn't the lax gun laws and pro-gun attitudes be mentioned? Don't they contribute towards a continual gun flow into the criminal world?

Why is that so difficult for people to admit? Perhaps by admitting such obvious facts, it's that much more difficult to shirk responsibility. Indiana gun owners and the shapers of Indiana gun policy need to stand up and take responsibility for the mess they've got on their hands.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. You must not have read past page one then.

    You should defer to the experts here. One program that I've heard sucessful is Project Ceasefire, developed IIRC by Boston.

    Florida's switch to shall-issue is also credited as reducing murders.

  2. Thanks for the link AztecRed.

    You guys keep repeating that as if we're suggesting we want gun control INSTEAD of crime control. Crime control is ongoing in various forms. In addition we need to control the guns even if that means inconveniencing you and your friends.

  3. And there, at least, you are being honest.

    You really aren't interested in reducing crime, but in controlling guns.

  4. MikeB: “…or getting rid of most of the guns. Wouldn't that cut down on the gun crime?”

    Yeah, it sure would. But it wouldn’t cut down on crime.

  5. TS said, "Yeah, it sure would. But it wouldn’t cut down on crime."

    I suppose you mean the advantages of killing with a gun would be equally replaced by knives and bats, is that it? The old, "if somebody really wants to kill, they'll find a way?"