“GUN CONTROL” AS SEEN BY HONEST CRIMINOLOGISTS

It certainly seemed very even handed until the end, where the Senate “failed to act.”

I would say those who support individual liberty did act, in our interest, and thankfully in a large enough group.

However, it does seem that dealing directly with the people who are the problem would yield the most significant result.

What a novel concept! Focus on identifying those bad actors and hot areas rather than trying to find a needle in a haystack among tens of (or perhaps one hundred plus) millions of law abiding gun owners.

Unfortunately for them (and for public safety), but fortunately for those of us who value freedom, the gun grabbers cannot seem to hide their true motivation, which is to ban all private ownership of firearms – now only possible de facto after the Heller decision. Until the anti-gun crowd can drop this dogma, our cities will be less safe.

Seems to me to be a fair and balanced approach. Wow, the second time this month I’ve agreed with a liberal. 😉

It’s the most reasonable thing I’ve read to date.
If one street is full of potholes, it’s counterproductive to attempt to repave every street in America.
A concern: I hope “face-to-face engagement” doesn’t mean something like NYC’s unconstitutional Stop-and-Frisk. That program creates future criminals in the same manner that drone strikes are creating future terrorists.
Kennedy’s proposal beats anything I’ve seen proposed.

Our biggest powers is voting out the anti gun politicians and that is what we MOST DO next election. Gun owners HAVE TO stick together and vote every anti gun politician out and send them a clear message we have had enough. It worked before and it can work again.
We just need to keep telling our friends, relatives, neighbors everyone we can who needs to go and get these folks the heck out of office as they come up for election.

Here is a very likely tip, as to Obama’s next move to deflect attention and bad publicity away from himself.

Just as he is now using tonight’s 60 Minutes spot, of the poor rescued U.S. female Somalian hostage, to STAGE ANOTHER “I KILLED OSAMA BLADEN” PUBLICITY PHOTO OP, TRYING TO MAKE HIMSELF LOOK MORE PRESIDENTIAL, AND DEFLECT THE BAD PR, FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL BENGHAZI DEBACLE HEARINGS.

Paul

Follow the below link to the complete article;

http://www.naturalnews.com/040286_false_flag_Benghazi_distraction.html#ixzz2T83a5WVU

False Flag-O-Meter reaches the red zone: Why a government-orchestrated distraction event is highly likely to occur in the next 7 days.

Excerpted from the Natrual News;

This is a short but urgent warning: A false flag event, an act of war, a bombing or some other headlines-grabbing orchestrated event is very likely to occur in the next seven days precisely because the Obama administration is under intense fire right now and needs a quick distraction. In stage magic, it’s called the “art of misdirection.” In politics, it’s called the “Clinton method.”

This is exactly what Bill Clinton did over and over again during his administration: Any time he was about to be raked over the coals for some political scandal, he would simply order the bombing of another “terrorist factory” somewhere around the globe. Magically, the Clinton News Network (CNN) would shift coverage to this heroic act of “national defense” and stop asking questions about his scandal back at home. That would give the Clinton administration enough time to intimidate, threaten or murder whoever might have been involved. (Vince Foster, remember?)

Right now, Hilary Clinton and President Obama are facing the possible downfall of their political careers over the Benghazi cover-up. Thanks to recent testimony, we now know that the Obama administration actually ordered the stand-down of U.S. military forces, directly causing the death of a U.S. ambassador as well as those in the embassy who attempted to save his life.

This is a scandal many times more explosive than Watergate. As the Benghazi investigation unfolds, it may very well end up in the forced resignation of Obama himself.

Besides the quip about Chicago having it all figured out, a good article that finally puts the focus where it belongs: on criminals.

A reasonable person would assume that concentrating policing activities on areas that have high potential to produce the most crime would be a good way to reduce overall crime, and that seems well documented. In that respect, I agree that Mr. Kennedy is being honest and true to his profession. This approach would be unlikely to help prevent situations like Newtown, where he says magazine bans could help. Mr. Kennedy presents no evidence for this conjecture so I can’t see any reason to take him seriously on that point. Unfortunately, the most sensational crimes will always get the most attention, even though they are rare and may not even cause a blip on the statistical background, and that makes them easy target to interject opinion (on either side).

I find it quite interesting that articles such as this are what “common sense” used to be about. Like with many other terms, the Left has re-defined common sense to mean “give up your own principles and do what we want/say”.

I’m pleased, however, at how many of the so-called mainstream news sources are now realizing that their credibility will remain in the toilet unless they start printing the truth, or at least act like journalists and ask questions of authority.

Mas, have you read this one? “The Myth of the Virgin Killer.”

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf

Most “let’s disarm the masses” people base their argument on “Ordinary people with guns will suddenly snap and murder!” Their conclusion is

Murder is a very unusual behavior and perpetrators turn out on investigation to be extreme aberrants. Studies of homicide uniformly find almost all murderers differ markedly from ordinary people in having life histories of violence, felony, psychopathology, substance abuse, restraining orders and so forth. If there is an argument for banning guns to the entire populace, it must derive from some other basis than that ordinary citizens are likely to commit murder.

Kennedy ascribes success to Boston’s “Operation Ceasefire”. The article noted additional cities replicated this concept with great success. This is great news and shows that cities, when unfettered by federal intrusion, can experiment and find the best solution for their problem.

The United States is a Federal Republic, a federation of mostly sovereign states. This “American Experiment” allows each state’s personality to flourish. Additionally, each state is able to independently experiment with policy and law to meet the needs of the state. Each state (county and city) is unique; one state’s (or county or city’s) solution may or may not work elsewhere. Our Federal Republic provides 50 “laboratories”, if you will, to find solutions to relatively common problems. As states (counties or cities) find solutions, other states are free to implement their version of the solution. Federal intervention is unnecessary, unwelcome, and ineffective. As Kennedy mentioned in his article, ALL federal attempts to reduce gun violence were ineffective and failed.

Good that it made it into the LA Times, and good that the strategies of Operation Ceasefire and focusing on “hot” locations are starting to reach other cities.

As long these strategies keep consistently reducing crime and improving neighborhoods, they should continue to spread and be refined by local government and law enforcement across the nation.

It may take awhile, but that’s how things go. Think of the history of shall-issue concealed carry. With consistent, clear evidence that shall-issue concealed carry does *not* result in “blood in the streets”, it still took 10 years of pushing from 1986-1996 for it to just reach a majority of states.

After 27 years it’s reached all but a small minority of states whose constituents largely ignore the ever-mounting evidence, and vote in representatives who do the same.

Rational minds will prevail, but we have to do what we can by spreading articles like these to those on either side of the political spectrum, and getting involved politically, if only to contact our city council, mayor, chief of police, and other local reps and make sure they’re aware of David Kennedy’s work and his results in reducing crime.

Mr Kennedy’s piece sounds more like criminal/violence control that works. It reduces national political leaders to a supporting role. It also leaves some egos gasping for attention and power. How much easier would it be to visualise limited national government under these policies? As amply demonstrated here in Britain some people don’t think they control their own lives unless they’re interfering in someone else’s.

Great article, but has no real bearing on the gun control arguement. That is, gun-control advocates are NOT trying to stop crime, or shootings, or mass-murders, nor make the world a better place… They are trying to take away guns. Thats being said, it is a great piece, well written and echoes many of the pro-gunners arguments. Will share!

I live in a small rural county in KY. Years ago I was a deputy sheriff . We had some extreemly bad winter weather and my wife worked for the mayor of the county seat. I went to his office to pick her up and encountered him wearing overhauls with a magistrate who was similary dressed. One had a shovel and the other had a pick. I asked them what they were going to do and the mayor told me that the state government had told them they could get a grant of ten thousand dollars to repair potholes , made by the extreem weather. I remarked that the state was not going to pay them to repair the potholes and the mayor informed me that they were not repairing pot holes, they were makeing pot holes!

As long as the state and federal government keep giving governments grant money to combat crime, they have a vested intrest in having crime.

When it costs them money to have crime, they will have a vested intrest in eleminating it.

Kennedy’s willingness to accept Rahm Emanuel’s claim that Chicago’s violence is on the decline this year made me raise my eyebrows — we’ve had an unseasonably chilly spring and CPD had already blown through their entire 2013 special enforcement budget midway through April. They’re spending $25 million a month on overtime and sending out rookie officers to stand on street corners and be seen. That money will run out soon and temps will climb, and so will the killings in Chicago.

One of the best snapshot websites for Chicago crime stats: http://www.heyjackass.com/ (pardon the oddly named domain in the URL, but the data is good)

Well thought-out and a good view on the real root of the “gun crime” problem.
However, the government already knows this. They push for gun control NOT to reduce crime but to disarm the citizens. If they showed their true agenda (citizen disarmament) they would get close to zero support, even from Liberals. So, they say “we need to ban guns to protect the children” and all the sheeple flock behind them bleating “Yes, ban guns. Save the children!”
One could argue that the government actually welcomes gun violence because it helps them further their hidden agenda.

Mas,

Same article I referenced in reply to another of your posts. I wanted your ‘take’ on the opinion. Looks like the post didn’t post.

He does present a valid argument concerning where much of the violence lies. But I have a inkling that he is also presenting a subtle argument for more regulation / confiscation.

It is refreshing to see others recognizing that the ‘gun problems’ are not with law abiding people but with the criminal element.

Don’t think that will sway many of the ‘grabbers’.

Mike

I have reached a point where (I’m told) I am my own worst enemy. I am part of the problem. I am not doing “my cause” any favors. I am obstructionist. I am closed minded, ad nauseum, etc, etc.

So be it.

I will not be seen conceding anything to any liberal again. Ever. Don’t care how that’s seen. These mindless, ignorant, disingenous fools play us like a violin every time something new comes up. We “come to the table” under the guise of wanting some sort of nebulous consensus to real solutions and get kicked in the teeth when they show their true colors once again. We are to the point where even discussing “real solutions” becomes another trap for their political expediency. I trust NOTHING they have to say. NOTHING!

NO! No more. Simple as that. This must end, and conceding ANYTHING, even the harmless appearance of disucussion only emboldens them to go for more next round. And, there WILL be a next round. That’s what serves their true untopian agenda: disarming citizens completely. I will not be part of it anymore. Screw them! Simply, “NO!!!!”

I really don’t want “washington” to be involved in anything more than it is and most assuredly in a lot less. Mind your central government business which certainly isn’t local crime.

I do find the focus on local policing, community oriented action and targeting high-probability actual and potential offenders to be both smart and apparently effective. But then that would be called ‘profiling’ and against the law once the feds get wind of it.

The whole gun-control debate isn’t about guns anyway. It’s about how far the government can go in controlling us. As long as we have guns… not so far. Without guns… look at Germany in the ’30s and ’40s. N. Korea (and other communist countries) today.

In city after city, when one looks at who committs murders and who gets killed, murderers overwhelmingly have prior arrests and convictions and many victims share this history too.

Some recent statistics:
Baltimore 2012, 90 percent of those arrested for murder and 80 percent of victims had criminal records.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-01-02/news/bs-md-ci-homicide-analysis-20120102_1_killings-stanley-brunson-baltimore-murder-victims

New Orleans, 64 percent of murder victims had felony records and Milwaukee, 75 percent had prior arrests
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/01/nopd_release_of_murder_victims.html

The following is from Don Kates himself:

“Studies of homicide, however, reveal that typically about 70% of U.S. offenders have been arrested in the past (usually more than once; see [Wolfgang, Marvin E. 1958. Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. P. 177]) and about 50% have been convicted of an offense (see Kleck and Bordua, 1983:293). Excerpted from, Kates, Don B., et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).

My personal suspicion is that given the chaotic state of criminal arrest records, let alone sentencing, have probably understated this linkage of criminal behavior between victims and perpetrators. When I completed my dissertation on criminal sentencing issues on appeal, I remember federal probation officers being frustrated at trying to get all relevant criminal history for pre sentencing reports under the sentencing guidelines. Unfortunately, no one body has seen fit to systematically record the histories of murder victims.

Thank you for contacting me about gun control legislation.

In the wake of the tragic December 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced S. 649 on March 21, 2013. I voted in favor of debating this legislation because I believe we are well served by having the debate. However, I did not support the amendment by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) expanding background checks, largely because the definition of commercial sales was too broad and included private transactions that it purported to exclude. Further, the amendment did not address the serious issue of guns getting into the hands of the mentally ill. I also did not support amendments banning assault weapons or restricting magazines.

I support the Second Amendment, and I do not believe our society needs more laws restricting legal gun ownership. What we really need is to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, while ensuring that those who break existing laws are fully prosecuted. Thus, I support strengthening the existing background check system in order to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

For this reason, I cosponsored S. 480 with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Bill Pryor (D-AR), which would assist states and federal agencies in providing mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by clarifying which records should be included. Our bill was included in an amendment proposed by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), S.AMDT. 724, which I cosponsored. S.AMDT. 724 is a more effective response to gun violence. In addition to broadening background checks to include all those adjudicated to be dangerously mentally ill, our proposal also creates penalties for gun trafficking, straw purchasing, and increases penalties for criminals attempting to circumvent the background check system. It also provides new tools and resources for prosecutions of firearm crimes. Senator Manchin’s proposal did not include all of these provisions to combat gun violence. Fifty-two senators supported S.AMDT. 724, including nine Democrats. Unfortunately, it needed sixty votes to pass.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so again in the future. I also encourage you to visit my website, which may be found at flake.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

JEFF FLAKE
United States Senator

The jury’s still out on whether the focus on “hot” people/places is the primary reason why Chicago’s homicides were down 39% year-over-year as of May 5 (Chicago Police Department CompStat figures). Like “Johnm” pointed out in his comment, we’ve had a long bout of colder-than-usual weather and there’s been a saturation of trouble spots by the CPD. But both don’t look to be sustainable- Chicago hit 91 degrees today and police overtime is being burned through fast. If you doubt that the weather plays a role with homicides here in the “Windy City,” hang out over at the Second City Cop blog for a while. “Chalkie” will set you straight.

While Im in favor of focused enforcment on “hot” areas and individuals who have shown themselves to be violent actors, It keeps coming back to “progressive” liberal types who wish to control all aspects of our lives. And not just guns, but what we eat, the light bulbs we use or the amount of water we flush with. Because gunnies tend to be more self-reliant, at least in some ways, the control freaks HATE US, because we don’t accept their pronouncments on our welfare as gospel, and.THAT is the crux of this fight we are in to preserve the Constitution, this culture we love, and the last small ‘L’ libertarian movement in this country.

re: Noah Vaile’s comment on “profiling.”
Right on and to add .. The Left’s gradual teaching of 2 generations about “Political Correctness” and related claims of “Racism” to blunt any rational discussion of fact based solutions to problems, as opposed to their solutions of more government controls and redistribution of assets, will continue to hinder direct approaches as recommended by Kennedy.