Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Less Guns, Less Crime

Birmingham, Alabama:

There's another piece of the puzzle that fits, too. Give Birmingham's Gun Court credit for helping lower the numbers of gun crimes and gun seizures. As News staff writer Carol Robinson reported in the Sunday edition, police report 14 percent fewer gun seizures in 2009 and a 10.5 percent reduction so far this year, and they're pointing to Gun Court as a reason.

Let's hope the program continues to be as successful as it appears after its first 19 months in operation.

So far, police have destroyed 130 weapons since gun court started in February 2009. Of the 240 people who have started or completed Gun Court, only two people in the program have been accused of another crime.


  1. Is it a matter of "Fewer Guns [the literate person's way of saying "Less Guns"], Less Crime," or "More Aggressive Prosecution of Crime, Less Crime"?

    Then again, there's also the little matter of declining crime rates nationwide.

  2. So where does it say anything about fewer guns? Oh yeah, the 130 they destroyed. And how many new firearm purchases were done in Birmingham in the same time period? Thought so.

    I have a problem in that the gang banger who gets busted for violent crime but didn’t have a gun doesn’t get to participate.

  3. Well, technically, this is a tale of less guns [confiscated], less crime.

    I fully support the idea that treatment of criminals is more productive than blind regulation of weapons.

  4. Where we see additional prosecution of criminals, MikeB sees "gun control."

  5. Prosecution? Thinks like gun court, treatment court and such are "programmes".


    But under a new program in Birmingham -- one initially derided by some officers as a "hug a thug" rehabilitation effort -- there is another option: Gun Court.

    And the results, so far, have been promising, police and court officials say...

    The goal is to catch gun offenders early and change their mindset through a regimen of court visits every other week, frequent drug testing, anger management and conflict resolution classes, fines and community service.

    I think you would describe this as being "liberal-touchy feely" if you examined it and not "prosecution".


  6. "Prosecution" was probably not the best choice of words on my part.

    Still, this:

    Different gun crime offenders have appropriate, individualized probation plans in Gun Court, but all participants must surrender their gun, meet with probation officers, show up in court every other Friday, be tested for drugs and abide by a curfew, regardless of their age.

    They also attend classes on gun awareness, anger management, conflict resolution and decision-making, along with dozens of hours of community service.

    Plus, Gun Court participants have to pay their own way, including paying for drug tests, fines and classes. Gun Court participants also hear speakers who have lost family members or friends to gun crimes.

    . . . sounds like a pretty regimented and rigorous confinement to the straight-and-narrow, especially for misdemeanants, and is apparently rigidly enforced.

    When compared to the catch-and-release "justice" systems in places like Chicago and Philly, it's not hard to see why Birmingham is having more success.

  7. "Where we see additional prosecution of criminals, MikeB sees "gun control.""

    This from one of our mystery men.

    Often you gun guys talk as if it's an either/or deal. No gun control person I've ever read wants to replace the criminal justice system with gun bans. The fact is we are already, however poorly, working on poverty and crime and unemployment and addiction problems. Gun availability is another factor, which happens to be one of the most concrete and easily dealt with.

    Presuming you're a legitimate gun owner, why are you so worried about a little inconvenience or even a lot of inconvenience if it would keep lots of guns out of the hands of lots of bad guys?

  8. "Presuming you're a legitimate gun owner..."

    That's rich, coming from a guy who admits to having owned guns illegally.

    "...why are you so worried about a little inconvenience or even a lot of inconvenience if it would keep lots of guns out of the hands of lots of bad guys?"

    It is precisely because it inconveniences me (someone who doesn't break the law, or intend to in the future) in order to stop someone who will not care one whit about breaking the law.

    My rights are not to be violated just because someone else can't be bothered to follow the law.

    Would you accept a "minor inconvenience" on being able to speak (or blog) your opinion because some people out there say inflammatory things? Just because you said "yes" to that doesn't mean that it would be right to stop others from speaking their minds.