Police Commissioner William Evans said a gun buyback program and stepped up anti-gun efforts on the street are working: Boston Police are taking lots of guns out of circulation, 970 so far this year, compared to 667 in all of 2013.
But at a public meeting last night about a shooting in Lower Mills on Election Day, Evans said the extra work is like pushing back the tide: Guns keep coming into Boston from states where it's really easy to buy guns, such as Florida and the Carolinas.
Still, Evans said the anti-gun effort may be having an impact. Across the city, shootings are down this year - the latest BPD stats show 187 shootings compared to 222 in the same period last year. He said this comes despite an increase in shootings in East Boston and the district that covers downtown, the North End and Chinatown - because shootings in Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan have gone down significantly.
Evans added that gang-related shootings are down, although he added that domestic shootings appear on the increase. He said that one troubling trend is that the shooters seem to be getting younger - it's no longer just older teens and men in their 20s who are going around shooting up neighborhoods. "Unfortunately, a lot of young kids have guns," he said, adding he was talking about kids as young as 13.
The commissioner agreed with city councilors Ayanna Pressley (at large) and Charles Yancey (Dorchester), who also attended the meeting - called by state Sen. Linda Dorcena Forry and state Rep. Dan Cullinane - that police work alone will not dampen gun violence: The city needs to work harder to prevent kids from getting into guns to begin with.
Evans pointed to the success of a program this past summer, in which Mayor Walsh worked with the IBEW on a training program for 15 or 16 teens with violent records. All but one graduated the program and now have good jobs, he said.
Evans expressed frustration with the court system. He said too often, police arrest somebody on a gun charge who was out on bail on a gun charge.
He noted approvingly that London, which has a very low gun-violence rate, has a mandatory five-year sentence for gun convictions. Here, he said, too many kids see our 18-month sentence as "almost like a badge of courage."
"It's frustrating for us, we're getting the same kids all the time," he said, estimating that 5% of the teens and young adults in the city are causing 70% of the problems.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
If Evans is acknowledging the
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 9:40am
If Evans is acknowledging the prevalence of guns, why does the city remain so opposed to allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed? The people who voluntarily pay for a safety course, background check, and go in to get fingerprinted are not the problem.
Really frustrating to see repeat offenders roam free, while the people who want to follow the law are restricted the most. At least BPD acknowledges what a joke our court system is with firearms charges. I'd be mad too if I did my job and had to deal with the catch and release practice. It's not fair to endanger our officers like that, especially when we do have mandatory sentences on the books that go unenforced.
Because...
By lbb
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 10:07am
...they don't believe it will help, obviously. You don't convince people by repeating something they've heard a hundred times before.
The solution to too many guns != more guns
By BlackKat
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 10:12am
The solution to removing illegal guns is to limit the supply for them, which is legal guns. You can't completely eliminate illegal arms trading but you can make it a hell of a lot more difficult for the sellers to procure the weapons.
I didn't say that it was a
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 10:36am
I didn't say that it was a solution; just that it seems like a nonsensical prioritization of legislation. The people impacted the most by the gun laws in MA are not the ones committing street violence. The strict laws we have for unlawful possession are consistently bounced off offenders, giving them little motivation to follow the law.
Remember that it takes a criminal to make a legal gun an illegal one.
I didn't say that it was a
By lbb
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 1:37pm
But it's not an either-or thing, is it?
Restrictions
By George Squash
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 12:14pm
It's ridiculous how police commissioner (Evans) can be allowed to put restrictions on a 49 year old law abiding citizen father of 2' Class A LTC License To Carry, when cities just outside of Boston are giving kids just turning 21-22 their full license without restriction.
Theoretically true but difficult in practice
By Nancy
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 10:37am
Limiting the supply of legal guns in Massachusetts won't necessarily reduce the number of illegal guns in Massachusetts. What will probably happen is more guns will come to Massachusetts from places like Georgia where guns are available in every strip mall. All in all, going to Georgia isn't that much more difficult if you really, really want a gun.
Amending Amendments
By BlackKat
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 11:57am
I was referring to a national restriction on weapons ownership actually. Weapons could still be stolen from police or military shipments, or come from outside our borders. But those are much more difficult routes than what we see now. In fact the current trend is for weapons to be smuggled from here to other countries because they are so easy to get here.
A national restriction on
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 1:16pm
A national restriction on weapons would not work in the U.S.
Ah, national gun control
By Alfredo
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 1:23pm
Worked well for the Germans, Russians, and Chinese..
You forgot
By perruptor
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 7:04am
You forgot
PolandAustralia.Riiiight
By anon
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 10:59am
Australia, also New Zealand, and maybe some Scandinavian liberal's darlings thrown into the mix - care to tell us what all those places have in common? Huge government-supported underclass, violent street gangs that vastly outnumber police, millions upon millions of illegal immigrants? They all have those, right?
Oh, jeez -- you're right
By perruptor
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 12:42pm
We're special, and nothing that works anywhere else on the planet can possibly work here.
We are special
By anon
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 2:10pm
Name me one first-world country with similar issues (over a million gangbangers, huge welfare population, etc.) What's working for a nation with highly educated, affluent, mostly homogeneous population will certainly not work here.
Because educating and
By Scratchie
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 2:36pm
Because educating and employing our underclass is clearly out of the question, is that what you're saying? Might as well shoot them and dump them in a ditch.
Britain is probably a closer
By Eric
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 11:03pm
Britain is probably a closer comparison than anywhere else in the world, and they have *far* fewer gun deaths than we do.
I'd still go with Australia
By perruptor
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 6:46am
They had a mass-shooting problem, and they solved it with gun control.
Good luck with ratification.
By wanker
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 6:30pm
Good luck with ratification. Won't happen in either of our lifetimes.
Cue the House to House searches
By Riain
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 8:15am
But you're forgetting about the 300 million + guns already in the US. Even if guns were illegal tomorrow, you'd have a rich supply of criminal guns for the next 100 years. Realistically, even if you could wave a magic wand and have all guns in the US disapear, it wouldn't solve the fundamental crime problem. Places like Britain, which has a very low number of gun crimes, actually have higher levels of violence than the US. In 2008 for example, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States. So although you're statistically more likely to be a victim of gun crime in the US than in the UK, overall you're far more likely to raped, beaten, robbed and/or stabbed in the UK. When looking at absolute numbers, the average person in the UK is about 3 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime. So disarming criminals doesn't solve the fundamental, underlying issues that cause crime.
That again?
By perruptor
Thu, 11/13/2014 - 9:17am
British authorities count violent crimes differently from US authorities. They include all kinds of things our DOJ does not include -- for instance, the Daily Mail article which is the original source of your statistic counted burglaries as violent crimes, which the DOJ does not. Burglaries are far more common here than in Britain. The Daily Mail also included soliciting prostitution and indecent exposure as "violent crimes."
You're comparing apples and oranges.
national restriction on weapons ownership
By ParkerD
Fri, 11/14/2014 - 7:40pm
There is a path to a "national restriction on weapons ownership" here in the USA. It would be repeal of the Second Amendment. That should be easy to accomplish for you and like minded friends. It's all in Article Five of the United States Constitution.
I'm so sick of these illegal
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 12:19pm
I'm so sick of these illegal guns walking around and loading themselves and shooting innocent people and/or gang members. We should lock them up so they don't hurt anyone else.....
Or maybe we could look at the fact that, as a resident of South Boston, it took me a full 8 months to get my LTC A and, even though I have no criminal record, I am restricted to "target and hunting" because so what constitution. Ra Ra guns are bad, maybe we should address the problem of the people who are using them illegally.
I usually vote D too (or I in this last election), but you're making us look like idiots there Kat.
If you want to use guns
By lbb
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 1:38pm
If you want to use guns against the bad guys (rather than against the bad turkeys or deer or bears or whatever), why don't you become a cop? Or join the army?
If you want smoke detectors
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 3:58pm
If you want smoke detectors in your house, why don't you become a firefighter?
Congratulations
By lbb
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 9:09pm
That's the single most nonsensical failed analogy I've heard all month, and you're going up against a big chunk of the internet.
Given the original comment
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 9:42pm
Given the original comment suggesting concealed carriers are itching to shoot people -- as well as your other brilliant musings on this thread -- no offense taken,
You know that almost every
By uh
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 10:40pm
You know that almost every other city/town in the state issues unrestricted licenses and hasn't turned into the wild west?
how do you surmise that legal
By Matt S
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 4:45pm
how do you surmise that legal guns are the supply for illegal guns? Theft? That means thieves are the source. Illegal transfer to someone without an LTC? That source would be the person commiting the illegal sale... Guns themselves do nothing.. It's the people not afraid the break the law. Min mandatory sentencing is supposed to a) deter someone from committing the crime in the first place, and b) allow that person to spend years behind bars where they attempt to be "rehabilitated" and realize they can't be doing the shit they were. Also: c) make the publi a safer place for a longer period of time.
Stop blaming guns and law abiding citizens for the actions of felons.
We know pretty well how this
By Eric
Wed, 11/12/2014 - 11:18pm
We know pretty well how this gun acquisition process works:
"Straw" purchasers with untainted backgrounds drive to states with lax gun laws and purchase guns in quantity, then drive them back to Boston to sell on the street. Lack of registration requirements means these people can do this repeatedly even if the guns they buy are ultimately used in a crime.
I find the argument that "we don't need to regulate guns because it's the bad people that commit the crimes" to be pretty ridiculous considering that guns are literally the *only* incredibly deadly tool that we have this attitude about. Also, there is little debate to be had about the effectiveness of national handgun restrictions. Countries with similar demographics but more restricted access to handguns just have fewer homicides and suicides. The fact is that guns just make killing people so much easier that they create whole new kinds of criminal activity that aren't even really viable in a place where guns are not a thing. After all, there's no such thing as "stray knife-fire."
Our gun laws are stupid.
By Boston_res
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 10:49am
We need a state wide set of laws. We need this instead of police chiefs pushing their own agendas in cities and towns. It makes absolutely no sense to have the chief in Cambridge issuing ALP LTCs while the chief here in Boston issues Target/Hunt restrictions. It's not a far hop across the river and the LTC once issued is good all over MA. Dumb laws.
Give the choice of living next door to a licensed gun owner and next door to a gun control advocate, I'd choose the gun owner as my neighbor. As you've stated, they've at least gone through a thorough background check here in MA and have been properly vetted. The other potential neighbor...who knows who they are and what they're up to.
Cambridge issues ALP?
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 11:02am
Cambridge issues ALP?
They have to the gun owners I know.
By Boston_res
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 11:43am
Boston will also issue ALP, it's very difficult to get though. The officer I interviewed with gave me the process for ALP and I just never followed up.
Boston won't issue ALP unless
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 12:44pm
Boston won't issue ALP unless you are a doctor, lawyer, handle cash deposits over $15,000, are a current/former police/law enforcement, politician, celebrity, or under direct threat/victim of attempted murder. You're rights as a resident of Boston are less than that of the other 93% of residents of almost every other municipality in the state because of this.
Wrong. I live in Boston, have
By Joe Cool
Fri, 11/14/2014 - 7:34pm
Wrong. I live in Boston, have no restrictions on my LTC and am not among the celebrity/law enforcement/their friends/etc. list you mentioned.
With a letter and a personal
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 11:43am
With a letter and a personal interview to the chief yeah. They respect Civil Rights unlike Boston & Brookline.
That would be news to me as
By Tollhouse
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 11:57am
That would be news to me as well.
"Give the choice of living
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 11:30am
"Give the choice of living next door to a licensed gun owner and next door to a gun control advocate, I'd choose the gun owner as my neighbor."
Why? Are you saying we should do background on checks on everyone so that we know they are safe? A gun control advocate either doesn't have a gun or believes in background checks and has gone through one to get a gun. Either way a gun control advocate probably isn't dangerous to live next to.
Arrests for Gun imports?
By Neighbor2
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 3:12pm
First, it does often seem like most of the newly proposed gun laws target law abiding people and impose a lot of bureaucracy on them, while as Supt Evans says, we don't seem to deal all that harshly with those who clearly have mal-intent.
And on that note, I'm curious if there are ANY arrests for people bringing the guns across state lines? ANY arrests for straw purchases? Do we know where ANY of these 13 year-olds got their guns? Those of us who try to follow the laws feel like we need lawyers just to keep track of the paperwork, while all of this obvious criminal activity continues with very little apparent ramification to the guilty.
Correction
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 9:42am
Thugs flooding boston, police not taking them off the streets. Last time I checked, there weren't any guns out there that feature a self-publish trigger.
does the buyback program pay for replicas?
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 9:52am
I have a high-quality handgun replica / film prop that I'd like to sell, but eBay won't allow it, and there's no way I'm going to sell it on Craigslist, where some dumb kid will use it to hold up a 7-11 or get himself shot.
Unlikely
By KBHer
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 10:30am
The buyback problem only provides financial incentives for handgun, semi-auto, etc... not even rifles or shotguns, I doubt they'd accept a prop.
Longer terms not the answer
By Crankycoffey
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 10:37am
I don't thing locking a kid up for five years instead of one is going to help - how about actually helping them to personally reform? Prison is more about punishment and less about change.
The IBEW program sounds much more useful. More people in jail for longer will not solve our problems of violence.
Ya lets give thugs and criminals high paying jobs
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 11:38am
and fucking the law abiding guy waiting in line for the same position. You cant reward bad behavior!
Ya, let's!
By adamg
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 12:29pm
Your concern for law-abiding citizens is truly touching. I bet you know lots of people who didn't get one of these entry-level jobs.
Since you don't give a rat's ass about people affected by violence, let me put it in terms you can understand: Every potential gangbanger who is instead working on a job is one less person that can come into your neighborhood and shoot it up with a gun.
BS take you Liberals crybaby crap
By anon
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 12:37pm
And stick it where the sun dont shine.
"Since you don't give a rat's ass about people affected by violence, let me put it in terms you can understand: Every potential gangbanger who is instead working on a job is one less person that can come into your neighborhood and shoot it up with a gun."
people affected by violence: NO this program is for people who have COMMITTED violent crimes.
potential gangbanger: These are current gangbangers.
Reread your own article buddy!
I suppose I could just reply "Bite me"
By adamg
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 12:41pm
But while satisfying, that wouldn't answer your objection.
If you have a guy who is in a gang and you give him a job and he's no longer in a gang, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Just a job
By relaxyapsycho
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 12:54pm
That's all gangsters need to leave the gangster mentality in the rear view.
Just ask Aaron Hernandez.
If it gets them loose from gang culture
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 1:12pm
It does.
I helped a woman whose son was getting out of jail by taking the young man (he was 20) around to the HRs at the various medical area hospitals, and helping him fill out applications.
He got work on night shift - sanitation. The guy who picked up the red bags.
Next time I saw his mom, she ran over to hug me. She was crying. Turns out night shift was exactly what he needed - she would drop him off and pick him up, and he was at work miles away from his bad-influence friends at the riskiest times. Meanwhile, with training, he'd already gotten a couple of raises, and he was doing well, and his baby daughter and girlfriend had health insurance.
I ran into him about 20 years later - he was doing environmental safety for the same hospital. The guy still recognized me. He'd gotten his GED and then his associates degree.
So, yes, a job can make a huge difference if it provides enough to make an honest living and gets people out of their "routines", as it were. I really wonder if these job programs take care of that second part?
Of course you did Swirl
By relaxyapsycho
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 1:12pm
You're just a saint, and everyone on this thread knew that somehow this would come back to you.
"You're just a saint"
By lbb
Tue, 11/11/2014 - 1:42pm
...and you're a complete douchebag. Seriously. What is wrong with you? Someone does a good thing, and all you can do is piss on it. What a miserable excuse for a human being.
Pages