Police to search for guns in homes

[off piste]

I'm sure the lefties will be in an uproar over this constitutional threat:


"I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution," said Thomas Nolan, a former Boston police lieutenant who now teaches criminology at Boston University. "The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don't have that."


Police to search for guns in homes

City program depends on parental consent

By Maria Cramer, Globe Staff | November 17, 2007
Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children's bedrooms.
The program, which is already raising questions about civil liberties, is based on the premise that parents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households.
In the next two weeks, Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave.
If officers find a gun, police said, they will not charge the teenager with unlawful gun possession, unless the firearm is linked to a shooting or homicide.
The program was unveiled yesterday by Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis in a meeting with several community leaders.
"I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution," said Thomas Nolan, a former Boston police lieutenant who now teaches criminology at Boston University. "The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don't have that."
Critics said they worry that some residents will be too intimidated by a police presence on their doorstep to say no to a search.
"Our biggest concern is the notion of informed consent," said Amy Reichbach, a racial justice advocate at the American Civil Liberties Union. "People might not understand the implications of weapons being tested or any contraband being found."
But Davis said the point of the program, dubbed Safe Homes, is to make streets safer, not to incarcerate people.
"This isn't evidence that we're going to present in a criminal case," said Davis, who met with community leaders yesterday to get feedback on the program. "This is a seizing of a very dangerous object. . . .
"I understand people's concerns about this, but the mothers of the young men who have been arrested with firearms that I've talked to are in a quandary," he said. "They don't know what to do when faced with the problem of dealing with a teenage boy in possession of a firearm. We're giving them an option in that case."
But some activists questioned whether the program would reduce the number of weapons on the street.
A criminal whose gun is seized can quickly obtain another, said Jorge Martinez, executive director of Project Right, who Davis briefed on the program earlier this week.
"There is still an individual who is an impact player who is not going to change because you've taken the gun from the household," he said.
The program will focus on juveniles 17 and younger and is modeled on an effort started in 1994 by the St. Louis Police Department, which stopped the program in 1999 partly because funding ran out.
Police said they will not search the homes of teenagers they suspect have been involved in shootings or homicides and who investigators are trying to prosecute.
"In a case where we have investigative leads or there is an impact player that we know has been involved in serious criminal activity, we will pursue investigative leads against them and attempt to get into that house with a search warrant, so we can hold them accountable," Davis said.
Police will rely primarily on tips from neighbors. They will also follow tips from the department's anonymous hot line and investigators' own intelligence to decide what doors to knock on. A team of about 12 officers will visit homes in four Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods: Grove Hall, Bowdoin Street and Geneva Avenue, Franklin Hill and Franklin Field, and Egleston Square.
If drugs are found, it will be up to the officers' discretion whether to make an arrest, but police said modest amounts of drugs like marijuana will simply be confiscated and will not lead to charges.
"A kilo of cocaine would not be considered modest," said Elaine Driscoll, Davis's spokeswoman. "The officers that have been trained have been taught discretion."
The program will target young people whose parents are either afraid to confront them or unaware that they might be stashing weapons, said Davis, who has been trying to gain support from community leaders for the past several weeks.
One of the first to back him was the Rev. Jeffrey L. Brown, cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, who attended yesterday's meeting.
"What I like about this program is it really is a tool to empower the parent," he said. "It's a way in which they can get a hold of the household and say, 'I don't want that in my house.' "
Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, whose support was crucial for police to guarantee there would be no prosecution, also agreed to back the initiative. "To me it's a preventive tool," he said.
Boston police officials touted the success of the St. Louis program's first year, when 98 percent of people approached gave consent and St. Louis police seized guns from about half of the homes they searched.
St. Louis police reassured skeptics by letting them observe searches, said Robert Heimberger, a retired St. Louis police sergeant who was part of the program.
"We had parents that invited us back, and a couple of them nearly insisted that we take keys to their house and come back anytime we wanted," he said.
But the number of people who gave consent plunged in the next four years, as the police chief who spearheaded the effort left and department support fell, according to a report published by the National Institute of Justice.
Support might also have flagged because over time police began to rely more on their own intelligence than on neighborhood tips, the report said.
Heimberger said the program also suffered after clergy leaders who were supposed to offer help to parents never appeared.
"I became frustrated when I'd get the second, or third, or fourth phone call from someone who said, 'No one has come to talk to me,' " he said. Residents "lost faith in the program and that hurt us."
Boston police plan to hold neighborhood meetings to inform the public about the program. Police are also promising follow-up visits from clergy or social workers, and they plan to allow the same scrutiny that St. Louis did.
"We want the community to know what we're doing," Driscoll said.
Ronald Odom - whose son, Steven, 13, was fatally shot last month as he walked home from basketball practice - was at yesterday's meeting and said the program is a step in the right direction. "Everyone talks about curbing violence," he said, following the meeting. ". . . This is definitely a head start."
Maria Cramer can be reached at mcramer@globe.com (mcramer@globe.com). http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif

[MtnBkr]

Well..I guess this is a good thing? it will keep kids away from firearms...and the kids who have them, will not have them anymore?

[off piste]

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin

[BG]

Yes. let us keep the lawlessness in the streets and classrooms, where it was meant to be

[Sweat Hog]

Time for a new career... :(

[Slider]

No one is giving up liberty. Homeowners are being requested to let the cops into their homes in case their kids have guns. Homeowners have that right already. What's changed?

Slider

[Slappy]

What he said.

[splat]

No one is giving up liberty. Homeowners are being requested to let the cops into their homes in case their kids have guns. Homeowners have that right already. What's changed?

Slider

Exactly , However, this does lead to a slippery slope. . What happends if they find other illegal Contra Band ? Like Drugs, then what ?

[Slider]

Then they confiscate it and arrest people. There's no ceding of rights here at all. The homeowners are inviting the police in. We're not talking a raid or something forceful.

Slider

[Slappy]

'If drugs are found, it will be up to the officers' discretion whether to make an arrest, but police said modest amounts of drugs like marijuana will simply be confiscated and will not lead to charges.
"A kilo of cocaine would not be considered modest," said Elaine Driscoll, Davis's spokeswoman. "The officers that have been trained have been taught discretion."'

-from the original post...

[Unbreakable]

I must agree with Ben Franklin. Once the 'State' is talks it's way into your home without a specific documented reason to "search" for weapons, a fundamental freedom has been surrendered.

Remember, we hire police to enforce the law. That in itself narrows what liberties police are allowed in the discharge of their duties.

How many stories have you read in the press about police interrogations and suspect rights and the nightmare that occured when the former overrode the latter, because the police were hot to bring in a suspect. One is all it takes.

How do you know when the police come to look for illegal weapons in your home, that they haven't brought you a little surprise?:fat:

"Every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints..." - Mick Jagger

[Slappy]

Judging by the what's going around there, some kids have a little more freedom than they can handle at the moment. If it was your neighborhood that was being shot up daily and your kids facing bullets every time they leave the house, you might feel a little differently. The area is flooded with guns and kids that won't think twice about using them, something has to change.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I must agree with Ben Franklin. Once the 'State' is talks it's way into your home without a specific documented reason to "search" for weapons, a fundamental freedom has been surrendered.

Remember, we hire police to enforce the law. That in itself narrows what liberties police are allowed in the discharge of their duties.

How many stories have you read in the press about police interrogations and suspect rights and the nightmare that occured when the former overrode the latter, because the police were hot to bring in a suspect. One is all it takes.

How do you know when the police come to look for illegal weapons in your home, that they haven't brought you a little surprise?:fat:

"Every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints..." - Mick Jagger

This kind of anti-police attitude really disconcerts me. I don't know when this became so prevalent.

Sorry, but if I were to choose between the good and the bad guys, the gang-bangers are bad. I don't give a **** how MTV portrays them. I'm with the police in doing what they feel they must to try and reduce the ever growing gang violence that pervades urban areas.

[Unbreakable]

While I agree the situation is dire, and a solution is necessary, I cannot
agree with "voluntary searches". We are all in situations of our own making. Parents have needed to guide their kids with a firmer hand for a few generations now. And, until adults in the community stand up and set an example for their children to follow, and refuse to allow lawless behavior from their kids, little will change.

The kids with guns are not worried about this new proposal, nor are they worried at all about getting caught. They are worried about their own safety, hence all the heat. Perhaps a workable solution is an intensified (and I mean F^@King intensified), enforcement presence on the street with 0 tolerance for criminal activity. I realize this kind of effort costs $$$, but it seems to me that the lawlessness that originated inside the homes has spilled onto the street. The street is where the police can stop it. It is up to the parents to stop lawless behavior inside the home. Allowing or even requesting police searches voluntarily will do little if anything to stop the spread of weapons in the hands of children.

[Unbreakable]

This kind of anti-police attitude really disconcerts me. I don't know when this became so prevalent.

Sorry, but if I were to choose between the good and the bad guys, the gang-bangers are bad. I don't give a **** how MTV portrays them. I'm with the police in doing what they feel they must to try and reduce the ever growing gang violence that pervades urban areas.

I am not anti-police at all, nor am I pro gang-banger. The right of protection from unlawful search and siezure is one the primary reasons we are a free nation and not all still subjects of the Queen. What I am opposed to is attemps to bandaid a hemmorhage via suspension of a fundamental right of EVERY citizen. I am all for justice, capital punishment included (even though it does not stop murder), and feel that it is not swift enough in most cases of violent crime.

This proposal of voluntary searches however well intentioned though, is nothing but an opportunity to widen the gap between punks gone way wrong and the cops. It will not stem the tide of weapons in the hands of kids.

[Slider]

What right was suspended? The homeowners ask the police in when they feel it necessary. That can happen now. All that has changed is that law enforcement has decided to ask homeowners to consider the option if they're concerned there may be guns in their house.

Again, that is their right. Nothing has been lost here.

Slider

[Slappy]

While I agree the situation is dire, and a solution is necessary, I cannot
agree with "voluntary searches". We are all in situations of our own making. Parents have needed to guide their kids with a firmer hand for a few generations now. And, until adults in the community stand up and set an example for their children to follow, and refuse to allow lawless behavior from their kids, little will change.

The kids with guns are not worried about this new proposal, nor are they worried at all about getting caught. They are worried about their own safety, hence all the heat. Perhaps a workable solution is an intensified (and I mean F^@King intensified), enforcement presence on the street with 0 tolerance for criminal activity. I realize this kind of effort costs $$$, but it seems to me that the lawlessness that originated inside the homes has spilled onto the street. The street is where the police can stop it. It is up to the parents to stop lawless behavior inside the home. Allowing or even requesting police searches voluntarily will do little if anything to stop the spread of weapons in the hands of children.

The 'adults' will not stand up, much more likely they will instead cry 'PROFILING' if efforts are stepped up; for the most part, they seem to be adults only in the chronological sense. If they were truly responsible, they'd get out of there; who in their right mind keeps their children around that kind of horrorshow year after year for no reason whatsover?

[Unbreakable]

The 'adults' will not stand up, much more likely they will instead cry 'PROFILING' if efforts are stepped up; for the most part, they seem to be adults only in the chronological sense. If they were truly responsible, they'd get out of there; who in their right mind keeps their children around that kind of horrorshow year after year for no reason whatsover?

Absolutely! My first inclinaton was to say MOVE. But people as I said are in circumstances of their own making. Most probably can't afford the rent in a safer neighborhood. Gotta stand up to your kids, and quell the urge to rebel BEFORE it starts. It is normal for young males to challenge the rules. It is where we learn about limits. In the absence of established rules, anything goes. Parents have to talk or knock some smarts into their kids. Otherwise it's shoot em up, and the cops looking in homes even when invited won't scratch the tip of the pile of weapons.

[Slider]

Even the best raised kids in the most advantaged environments can go bad. Add in poverty, gangs and everything else, and you got a family that needs the help of the police sometimes. That's all we are talking about here.

One gun outta the hands of one desperate kid goes a lot further than you seem to think.

Slider

[Slappy]

I don't think it's any cheaper to live in those neighborhoods then it would be to live in any of a few thousand others I could think of - Boston rent is sky-high. Figure most of those kids are being raised by single moms; in my experience, most single moms know jack **** about how to keep a boy in line (I've got a 12 y/o stepson and my wife has no clue how his mind works, nor do most of the female teachers/guidance counselers etc that I've dealt with). The clowns fathering all these kids are the most to blame, but of course they have a right to impregnate and abandon as many women as they possibly can.

Maybe sometimes rights are overrated...

[Slider]

It would be physically and socially impossible for all the poor to leave our cities. There is plenty of blame to go around, so let's offer help instead. Get the guns outta the houses, with the help of the police if the homeowner requests.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

Even the best raised kids in the most advantaged environments can go bad. Add in poverty, gangs and everything else, and you got a family that needs the help of the police sometimes. That's all we are talking about here.

One gun outta the hands of one desperate kid goes a lot further than you seem to think.

Slider
Wrong. Just means he won't get shot for his piece. Nikes or his leather, but not his gun. You haven't a clue.

[Unbreakable]

It would be physically and socially impossible for all the poor to leave our cities. There is plenty of blame to go around, so let's offer help instead. Get the guns outta the houses, with the help of the police if the homeowner requests.

Slider

As I said before, this "voluntary searches" program however well intentioned, will only widen the gap between punks gone way wrong and the cops.

Kids who get their guns taken will just get more guns. How? Simple, commit more crimes, to get more money, to buy more (guess what) guns.

There is no way this effort will eliminate weapons in the hands of kids.
Not even close.

[bullitfreerider]

It would be physically and socially impossible for all the poor to leave our cities. There is plenty of blame to go around, so let's offer help instead. Get the guns outta the houses, with the help of the police if the homeowner requests.

Slider

You might call it "tough love". Police intervention with troubled kids in a family is nothing new. In the case of my nephew, he got taken out of the house down in TX(it wasn't a gun issue). Intervention at a families request defuses the tension, at least temporarily. Giving the cops permission to look for guns in the family's home also defuses a situation. Of course, hidden guns outside the home is another matter.

So what's the possibility here.....the kid needs a gun for protection? Dumb. He either gets popped anyway or pops someone else out on the street, possibly an innocent bystander. The gun you don't look for is possibily used in a crime and some kid is dead and another goes to jail.

If the kid is really a gang banger, it won't make much of a difference if there is no arrest and subsequent incarceration. And a gang banger can easily hide the weapon outside the home anyway. And let's face it, the MA mandatory sentence for possession of an unlicensed gun is a joke.

Look, we're talking about illegal guns here. What has to happen is formal written proof from parents that allows a search......quite possibly with court concurance in order to minimize problems.

Yup and I'm an NRA, GOAL member with a license to carry, so don't shoot the messenger. :^)

[Slider]

Wrong. Just means he won't get shot for his piece. Nikes or his leather, but not his gun. You haven't a clue.

There's some reasoning for you.

What clue do you have that I don't have? More guns means what, less violence? Parents who ask for help shouldn't get it?

These aren't clues. They are billboards.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

There's some reasoning for you.

What clue do you have that I don't have? More guns means what, less violence? Parents who ask for help shouldn't get it?

These aren't clues. They are billboards.

Slider

The clue I have (the one you seem to have missed) is in your own previous reply
"One gun outta the hands of one desperate kid goes a lot further than you seem to think." - Slider

If you think the desperate kid who has his illegal gun confiscated is going to anything other than go right out and get another gun, you should probably try thinking like the desperate kid, instead of how it is you actually do think.

Confiscating illegal street guns will increase the police's inventory of illegal guns. It will NOT decrease the number of illegal guns on the street. Supply and demand is at work, and as long as the demand remains, the supply will be there to fill it.

[Slappy]

It would be physically and socially impossible for all the poor to leave our cities. There is plenty of blame to go around, so let's offer help instead. Get the guns outta the houses, with the help of the police if the homeowner requests.

Yup - at the very least it's a small step in the right direction.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Sorry, I don't buy any of the civil liberties arguments. This is pure and unabashed disrespect of the police, no matter how strongly any of you might try to disagree. You're essensially saying that you don't trust the police to go by the book in cases where this method might be used. All of these b.s. arguments that the kids will just go out and find another gun. Yea, maybe, but at least there is one less that could have killed someone. Anything that makes it harder for these youths to live the gansta life is a step in the right direction. Sure, there will be strong arming. GOOD! What would you suggest they rather do, bring them kittens and coupons for KFC? "Please don't participate in gang violence, young man. And please don't hate us. We're just the police trying to keep all the innocent people safe. Here's a kitten."

The police are not the bad guys, folks. How about giving them the benefit of the doubt and see if this program reaps any resuls before you start trashing their motives.

[FriedRys]

Seems to me that if Slappy, Slider and Cheese are in agreement on an issue, there has got to be some merit to it.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Seems to me that if Slappy, Slider and Cheese are in agreement on an issue, there has got to be some merit to it.

Yea, and just for the sake of absolute clarity, Clinton and Bush still suck, and so does Guiliani, Obama, Romney, Edwards, Gore, and the rest of both parties' candidates, except for my man Ron Paul... lest anyone starts feeling too comfortable in this alliance. ;)

[Slappy]

Seems to me that if Slappy, Slider and Cheese are in agreement on an issue, there has got to be some merit to it.

:har:

Somebody take a picture - quick!
:D

[Slider]

I guess I can't resist one more point, at the risk of destroying this Thanksgiving Day harmony...

I find it ironic that the issue centers on loss of Constitutional rights surrounding, I guess, unwarranted search or something similar. Now, hands please, where has the most recent REAL threat to the protections against a warrantless search come from?

You get one guess.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Real threat? Why, have you or anyone you know been compromised by those "evil fascists" in out government? Yea, didn't think so.

Enough with this real threat garbage. Unless your name is Muhammad and you attend prayers at a mosque, the threat is virtually zero.

Yea, thanksgiving is over.

[Slider]

First, you better believe there have been warrantless searches. Of you and me and everyone else, by the NSA, when they reviewed the phone records of any chickenshit provider in the country that didn't stand up to them. And then there's the FISA thing.

But even if they hadn't happened, the threat to the Constitution lies in the fact that a fundamental protection has been eliminated. More than a slippery slope, this is a de facto change to the document.

Remember Nixon using the IRS to target his enemies? Even if you don't agree that the current scumbag would do the same with our phone records, the reason we prevent intrusions like what the NSA has done is to eliminate the possibility that the next scumbag would. If the power is there, it will be abused. If not now, later. All we have is the Constitution, and the threats are real.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

First, you better believe there have been warrantless searches. Of you and me and everyone else, by the NSA, when they reviewed the phone records of any chickenshit provider in the country that didn't stand up to them. And then there's the FISA thing.

But even if they hadn't happened, the threat to the Constitution lies in the fact that a fundamental protection has been eliminated. More than a slippery slope, this is a de facto change to the document.

Remember Nixon using the IRS to target his enemies? Even if you don't agree that the current scumbag would do the same with our phone records, the reason we prevent intrusions like what the NSA has done is to eliminate the possibility that the next scumbag would. If the power is there, it will be abused. If not now, later. All we have is the Constitution, and the threats are real.

Slider
First you argue that all the cops are doing is looking for guns, they don't need a warrant to search, just permission from the homeowner (which may or may not be true).

Now, you are railing against warrantless searches as an infringement on your Constitutional rights.

Which is it, an infringement or not an infringement?

[Slider]

Need a little help with the logic, eh? No problem.

Homeowner says come in, no warrant needed. Never was.

Government says review our phone records without permission, illegal and very unconstitutional.

What part don't you understand?

Slider

[Slappy]

Right, in one case, specific consent is given, in the other, it's not.

No need to get all snippy about it it tho yo.

[Unbreakable]

As I said before, this program, regardless of the number of handgun confiscations, will not reduce the number of guns in the hands of kids.

As such, it will not be regarded as a worthwhile effort in the end. I'm not pessimistic mind you, the effort should target reducing the DEMAND for handguns not the supply. Untill this happens the number of adolescent shootings will NOT decline.

[Mr_Cheeze]

As I said before, this program, regardless of the number of handgun confiscations, will not reduce the number of guns in the hands of kids.

As such, it will not be regarded as a worthwhile effort in the end. I'm not pessimistic mind you, the effort should target reducing the DEMAND for handguns not the supply. Untill this happens the number of adolescent shootings will NOT decline.

Wow, your logic is screwed up.

Don't you think think that if the authorities had some inkling as how to go about reducing the supply of available handguns that they would absolutely be doing that? You make it sound like they're just ignoring the easy solution, because you can't be talking about just abolishing the right for all citizens to carry. Little constitutional issue there... 2nd amendment. You've heard if it?

And what do you propose the cops do in the meantime, just ignore this fact that the urban youths have all of these guns? Just forget about them, because, as you say, there seems to be an endless supply... coming from the Hip Hop Genie in a Bottle, I guess. Well, they better start searching for that bottle. It's the key to stopping urban violence!

[Slider]

Right, in one case, specific consent is given, in the other, it's not.

No need to get all snippy about it it tho yo.

And I thought I was being helpful. I guess you're right.

Tossig that "liberal" label around as if it was some sort of curse does bug the **** outta me, though. It is sound bite logic, in place of discussion.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

And I thought I was being helpful. I guess you're right.

Tossig that "liberal" label around as if it was some sort of curse does bug the **** outta me, though.

Slider

What is it about liberals that they hate being called liberals? Conservatives seem to wear their label as a badge of honor... unless you add "neo" in front of the term, then they get snitty.

[Slider]

The liberal label fits me some of the time and not others. My point was that using labels in place of actual discussion is a weak attempt at evasion when you got nothing to bring.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Don't take the bait. There is no happy ending to be found here.

[Mr_Cheeze]

The liberal label fits me some of the time and not others. My point was that using labels in place of actual discussion is a weak attempt at evasion when you got nothing to bring.

Slider

I have to bite.

Ok, please tell us when this label does not fit. The intrigue is killing me.

[Slider]

I guess that depends on how you define conservative and liberal.

I am conservative on fiscal issues. Fund the right programs, but make sure you can pay for them first.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

“Wow, your logic is screwed up.
Don't you think think that if the authorities had some inkling as how to go about reducing the supply of available handguns that they would absolutely be doing that? You make it sound like they're just ignoring the easy solution, because you can't be talking about just abolishing the right for all citizens to carry. Little constitutional issue there... 2nd amendment. You've heard if it?
And what do you propose the cops do in the meantime, just ignore this fact that the urban youths have all of these guns? Just forget about them, because, as you say, there seems to be an endless supply... coming from the Hip Hop Genie in a Bottle, I guess. Well, they better start searching for that bottle. It's the key to stopping urban violence!” - Quoted from Mr. Cheeze, Yesterday, 09:02 AM

Using some basic keywords should have helped you see my point. My "logic" as you call it is nothing more than economic law. Allow me to elaborate....

Whatever the underlying reasons (topics for a separate discussion), youths in certain situations perceive a strong need to have a gun. I believe there is agreement here, but correct me if I’m wrong. This “perception of need” creates DEMAND for guns. As long as DEMAND exists in a market economy (legitimate or black market), the SUPPLY will be available to fill that DEMAND. BTW this SUPPLY comes from legitimate business not the HIP HOP Genie in a bottle.
In the U.S. more that 1.3 million pistols and revolvers were produced in 2005*, with only about 30,000 legitimately exported, so the SUPPLY is readily available. I think we could agree here as well, but again correct me if I’m wrong.
My point is this: Removing some of the inventory (SUPPLY that has satisfied DEMAND) of guns from the hands of said youths by any means (parental consent, warranted search, even draconian tactics), will NOT lessen the aforementioned DEMAND. It is a noble, but futile effort that burdens law enforcement, and will make no statistical impact. Because, if you take a kids gun away, and that kid wants to have a gun, he will simply obtain - guess what - another gun. Until the DEMAND goes away, SUPPLIERS will continue to produce.

AND...abolishing a citizen’s “right to keep and bear arms” is not the easy solution either; nor have I advocated it. The easy solution is the one that works.
*http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/stats/afmer/afmer2005.pdf

[Mr_Cheeze]

So you want to limit the amount of handguns being manufactured? Hell, why advocate banning possession of guns when you can "simply" regulate production.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Would you like to take a gander as to which side the NRA, as well as 99% of real conservatives would fall on your proposal?

Bottom line, it's hardly a realistic solution. Politically, it has less of a shot than abortion being completely banned.

[Unbreakable]

So you want to limit the amount of handguns being manufactured? Hell, why advocate banning possession of guns when you can "simply" regulate production.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Would you like to take a gander as to which side the NRA, as well as 99% of real conservatives would fall on your proposal?

Bottom line, it's hardly a realistic solution. Politically, it has less of a shot than abortion being completely banned.

You simply cannot conclude from my previous post that I am in favor of limiting gun production, which by the way I am not. It is even sillier for you to imply that I am unaware of the gun lobbyists might, which by the way I am not.

What part of SUPPLY and DEMAND don't you understand?

[Slappy]

Unless you propose some some sort of realistic alternate plan (ie -may or may not work, but at least doesn't require suspension of reality and/or a time machine) rather than just point out the shortcomings of this one, I'm gonna brand you a Liberal too.

:)

[Unbreakable]

The answer is neither complex, nor does it require a lot of thought, just effort. Let's start with economic opportunity. To say there isn't much legitimate economic opportunity in areas where teen gun crimes occur at alarming rates, is an understatement. It's my guess that a good deal of kids who have this "need" for a gun are engaged in some activity for which they need protection from rivals. Neither is it limited to gangs. So let's assume that a good portion of the problem is rooted in black market activity, gang or otherwise. To the kids with guns it is their economy if you will. A way to prosper in the absence of REAL economic opportunity.

The answer is TOTAL community involvement (business and private citizens), creating a situation where there is sufficient economic opportunity and security to displace the activities causing the DEMAND for guns. The present situation took a considerable amount of time to degrade to where it is. The restoration process will take considerably longer, but cannot be shouldered by the police alone.

BTW, I am neither conservative nor liberal, but practical.

[Mr_Cheeze]

You simply cannot conclude from my previous post that I am in favor of limiting gun production, which by the way I am not. It is even sillier for you to imply that I am unaware of the gun lobbyists might, which by the way I am not.

What part of SUPPLY and DEMAND don't you understand?

Well, what IS your point then? You can talk about supply and demand all you like, Mr. Warren Buffet. You're not teaching anything new, here, so please dispense with the patronizing tone. Problem is, in no way does revealing the secret of supply and demand suggest an actual solution. Aha, yes, the solution. You seem to think there's an easy one, but until you actually tell us what that is beyond some fanciful, Utopian idea, you leave us with no other choice but to speculate.

he answer is TOTAL community involvement (business and private citizens), creating a situation where there is sufficient economic opportunity and security to displace the activities causing the DEMAND for guns. The present situation took a considerable amount of time to degrade to where it is. The restoration process will take considerably longer, but cannot be shouldered by the police alone.First off, how do you get businesses and private citizens to stop being afraid for their lives? They can't even step onto the sidewalks after dark in many of these areas. How do you propose creating employment opportunities for troubled and violent youths? You just leave that up to businesses to take extreme chances by bringing in commercial enterprises simply to help better the community? Ok, let's assume that someone with capital is not out of their mind, and decides to renovate a crumbling edifice, turning it into a distribution warehouse. They hang out a "Jobs For Hire" sign in front. So now those who can read spread the word to those who can't what this all means. They get to make minimum wage taking orders from others doing something that is hardly as exciting as peddling crack and staking out territory. Business fails, warehouse closes, and back to square one.

You go on as if there isn't already some level of community effort to try and make things better. Problem is, you can't do anything without some aggressive police involvement. You are making the very wrong assumption that the police are "doing it alone". They aren't. We don't live in a police state. I can almost guarantee you that the idea that you found so unpalatable actually originated from a community leader or a private citizen. Did you ever stop to think that maybe one of the parents of a gang member or violent youth actually wants more police involvement, that they might be for having their house searched for weapons? Why not give it a try?

Yes, of course it's going to take a long time to improve these areas, if it can be done. It can be. Do you know how Guilliani cleaned up New York? With a HUGE, aggressive police presence. And you better believe that a vast majority of New York residents are happier for it. And I think that if you went across the country to find similar occurances of urban renewal, you're going to find it being done with large police involvement, the type that makes many people uncomfortable, but the type that serves notice that the people are fed up with the violence. Forget about all of this supply and demand crap. That means nothing. You can't clean up a ghetto by just adding a new coat of paint.

[Unbreakable]

You call me patronizing, Oh, no! You called me "Mr. Warren Buffet", and my ideas "Utopian". Do not think me patronizing because I ask a question based on your lack of an adequate response to my previous point. You read something into my post that obviously wasn't there (limits on gun production etc), so I had to ask.

That's OK, because in the end you did agree with my opinion that it will take a long time to turn the situation around. Just for fun though, go back an read my 11/20 post where I did suggest intensified police presence.

It is not for me or you to tell the community leaders what to do, it's up to them to figure out what will work. You may remember the quote "If I give a man a fish, he can eat. If I show him how to fish, he can feed his family."? Instances of urban crime and blight have been turned around in the past. Some with better results than others, so it's not rocket science. Unless and until the entire community gets involved, the restoration will not happen.

[kernel crash]

So let's assume that a good portion of the problem is rooted in black market activity, gang or otherwise. To the kids with guns it is their economy if you will. A way to prosper in the absence of REAL economic opportunity.


I don't know. That's just an easy way out. I grew up in the housing projects and I never had a gun, and neither did any of my friends. Today there's no fear of the law. The bigger the gun the bigger the ego. Its the cool culture to them. No death penalty to worry about. Hey what's the worst that can happen. Go to jail and get that street cred. Ya, I'm bad.

[Mr_Cheeze]

You call me patronizing, Oh, no! You called me "Mr. Warren Buffet", and my ideas "Utopian". Do not think me patronizing because I ask a question based on your lack of an adequate response to my previous point. You read something into my post that obviously wasn't there (limits on gun production etc), so I had to ask.



Hey look, you never specified anything other than this obscure idea of yours. You left me and others with no other option than to speculate as to what exactly you were trying to say. And quite honestly, I still don't know. It's all well and good to say that something should be done. Hell, politicians do that all the time, especially when they're trying to get elected. Why, Hillary Clinton is doing that right now! But you've offered nothing other than to denounce the proposal for which this thread began. There is no constitutional issue if parents choose to give police the freedom to search their homes. To get rid of gun already on the street is only a good thing. Supply and demand has nothing to do with anything. Gun manufacturers aren't producing weapons because of street demand. Most of those are possessed illegally. The numbers don't factor into the economics. Besides, economics won't cure the violence on the streets, unless you're talking about legalizing drugs, and we know that's never going to happen in this country.

[Adam Smith]

Supply and demand has nothing to do with anything.

I would disagree.

[BG]

I would disagree.


Adam...Adam is that you,are you reaching out from the grave with your "Invisible Hand"????

[Slider]

Whatever the long term social solutions, taking guns outta kids hands can only help.

Yes, reducing demand would too. The most effective way to do that is to legalize any and all drugs.

Wait - Cheeze and I agree again. Says something, I think. Not sure what.

Slider

[Adam Smith]

Whatever the long term social solutions, taking guns outta kids hands can only help.

The problem is not getting the guns off the streets, it is by what means.

I, for one, am very much against any fundamental breach of any man's human rights. The police are required to obtain a warrant to search your home. Allowing them in doesn't, in my eyes, make it any less of a breach; it simply makes it one not admissible in court. However, thats an entirely different argument altogether.

Bottom line is, if people (kids) want guns, they'll have their guns, one way or the other. What it boils down to, is making them not want guns.

Do you really think that taking an illegal gun from somebody who is willing to sell drugs, kill and/or maim people, and generally have no regard for the law is going to make that much of a difference in how they view their world? Do you think it will bring about a fundamental change in their behavior? The answer is, quite frankly, no. You have to change the person, not just take away one of his weapons.

All in all, while I do not support the methods of the police in this matter, I do feel that this is a step in the right direction, fundamentally. I would however, prefer a different tactic, one perhaps, a bit more in keeping with the spirit of The Constitution.

[Unbreakable]

Quote
“Hey look, you never specified anything other than this obscure idea of yours. You left me and others1 with no other option than to speculate as to what exactly you were trying to say. And quite honestly, I still don't know. It's all well and good to say that something should be done. Hell, politicians do that all the time, especially when they're trying to get elected. Why, Hillary Clinton is doing that right now2! But you've offered nothing other than to denounce the proposal for which this thread began. There is no constitutional issue if parents choose to give police the freedom to search their homes. To get rid of gun already on the street is only a good thing.3 Supply and demand has nothing to do with anything.4 Gun manufacturers aren't producing weapons because of street demand. Most of those are possessed illegally. The numbers don't factor into the economics. Besides, economics won't cure the violence on the streets, unless you're talking about legalizing drugs,5 and we know that's never going to happen in this country.” – Mr. Cheeze, November 28th, 2007, 07:39 PM

I have been quite clear in my opinion on the steps needed to quell the incidence of inner city gun crimes by adolescents, as well as repairing neighborhood decay. I suggested intensified police patrols, and total community involvement. If I came right out and said “Enterprise Zones” however, the cackling would be deafening. Suffice it to say it’s another fundamentally sound concept, mangled by useless politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle.6 So, let’s leave it at that. On a smaller scale, and at local levels, Enterprise Zones do work.


1. All those of you “Others” who found my posts obscure, please register. Thanks
2. All those who feel politicians are both capable and willing to solve the problem for us, speak up.
3. Anyone who believes a gun taken off the street will NOT be replaced within 24 hours, I want to hear from you too.
4. Everyone who doesn’t understand the market forces of supply and demand, chime in.
5. $100 to the person who finds my post advocating the legalization of drugs.
6. http://tinyurl.com/33g3ee

[Slider]

The problem is not getting the guns off the streets, it is by what means.

I, for one, am very much against any fundamental breach of any man's human rights. The police are required to obtain a warrant to search your home. Allowing them in doesn't, in my eyes, make it any less of a breach; it simply makes it one not admissible in court. However, thats an entirely different argument altogether.


I just don't see it. I WANT the cops to come into my house when I need them. I imagine everyone else does too.

"Officer, there's a terrorist in my living room. Please help."

"Sorry, sir, that would be unconstitutional."

Same thing if my kid, who might well intimidate me, probably has a gun. I want help. There is nothing in the Constitution that says I can't ask for it.

I don't even see any grey here.

Slider

[Slappy]

Again - what he said...

And removing a number of guns from the hands of a number of *******s, even if it is only temporarily, may very likely defuse or modify a certain situation on a certain day that leads to an innocent bystander not being killed or maimed. Cuz truthfully, I don't have all that much of a problem with *******s killing other *******s, I just wish they had better discretion. And aim.

[Mr_Cheeze]

1. All those of you “Others” who found my posts obscure, please register. Thanks

The others are those who are also wondering how understanding supply and demand will magically cure inner city violence.

2. All those who feel politicians are both capable and willing to solve the problem for us, speak up.

Well, don't you think that we elect these people for a reason? If not them taking the reins, then who? A good start would be to hold them accountable instead of rubber stamping the Hillary Clintons of the world simply because they have the most exposure.

3. Anyone who believes a gun taken off the street will NOT be replaced within 24 hours, I want to hear from you too.

Nobody is disputing this fact.
4. Everyone who doesn’t understand the market forces of supply and demand, chime in.

Nobody is disputing the market forces of supply and demand. But they have little to do with guns and street violence.

5. $100 to the person who finds my post advocating the legalization of drugs.

Never said YOU were advocating it. Never said it. What I did suggest that it is a solution to the problem that has next to no chance of ever happening in this country. For the record, I do advocate legalizing certain drugs. Remove the black market and you remove 90 percent of the street economy. Read: prohibition

Maybe it will help me better understand where you are coming from if you provide a specific point about what EXACTLY you think should be done, instead of saying what shouldn't, because I've yet to see anything from you that suggests a practical solution. Saying that the citizens and private business need to work together to forge a solution is an easy thing to suggest in a blog. It's hardly helpful in reality.

I'm still trying to figure out what I'm supposed to do with this gun manufacturing data that you graciously supplied a few pages back. Great, they're making lots of guns. So what? You're not advocating regulating manufacturing and distribution. And you're not advocating legalizing drugs. You're against the permitted police searches. Soooo... other than wanting everybody to just get along and come together as a community to fight against urban violence, what exactly are you advocating?

[Slappy]

What are the 'downsides' to Enterprise zones? Sounds like that could also help.

[BG]

"Maybe it will help me better understand where you are coming from if you provide a specific point about what EXACTLY you think should be done, instead of saying what shouldn't, because I've yet to see anything from you that suggests a practical solution. Saying that the citizens and private business need to work together to forge a solution is an easy thing to suggest in a blog. It's hardly helpful in reality."

Are we saying that this thread has to be held to a higher standard than a Presidential Debate???

[Unbreakable]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slappy http://www.nemba.org/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.nemba.org/forums/showthread.php?p=155364#post155364)
What are the 'downsides' to Enterprise zones? Sounds like that could also help.

Google it. There is no downside to creating Enterprise Zones as a way to revitalize urban areas in decay. Many states already have their own programs essentially the same as the original, advocated by former H.U.D. Secretary Jack Kemp. http://tinyurl.com/2uyqdd

Here is an inspiring article (no pun intended) about a gal who turned around a case of urban blight almost SINGLEHANDEDLY.
http://tinyurl.com/3x4ugx __________________

[Slappy]

Thanks for the links. I had googled it; sounded reasonable to me. I'm always interested to hear the opinions of my esteemed colleagues tho...

[Mr_Cheeze]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/25/police_limit_searches_for_guns/

For those of you who were cynical of the intentions of the police. It seems as if they are practicing just prudence. Still have a problem with it?

[Slappy]

Is it weird that the only guy that gets it is the guy that's in prison? WTF is the matter with people? If I couldn't handle my kid and I thought he had a gun and was out committing crimes with it, why the hell wouldn't I want the cops to come get him? Some people's logic is seriously f'ed up. Same ones that compare the cops to vampires and rapists are likely the ones bitching that they don't do enough about crime in their neighborhoods. You keep lining your nests with idiocy, you shouldn't be surprised about what comes to roost there.

[Longshanks]

I don't think this program is unconstitutional (close, but still on the right side of that line), and I don't have a problem with the program as it was intended...but I don't, nor have I ever, lived in the neighborhoods targeted by this program. Clearly, a vocal majority of the people in all but one of those neighborhoods do not trust the police. There must be a reason for that. If the police want these people to trust them enough to invite them into their homes, then they should start by trying to understand from where this mistrust stems.