Hey, there! Log in / Register
South End meeting tonight on gun violence
By adamg on Wed, 12/16/2015 - 8:15am
Four South End civic groups are holding an emergency meeting tonight on "the surge of gun violence in our neighborhood."
In a seven-day span, the South End experienced three shootings, including a fatal incident in the early morning hours of Wednesday, December 9.
The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. at the South End House, 48 Rutland St.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Bullets Flying By and $1,200 Strollers Blocking Sidewalks
I sort of miss living there.
Why isn't the meeting being held at Villa Victoria? That is where the bad actors originate from in these shootings. It isn't the Five Horses Tavern or the Metropolis brunch crowd glocking it.
no-fly list
Once we ban gun sales to those on the no-fly list, we can all sleep easy. Problem solved.
Anybody know the name for
this kind of stupid logical fallacy?
Gun Owners Arent Responsible For Addressing Gun Violence.
It's called trolling... in this case by dimwitted conservatives. I know you're going to ask: Is there any other kind? I don't know. Find the exception, prove the rule.
Silly you thinking all these
Silly you thinking all these criminals went through the extensive licensing application process in Massachusetts, state/federal background checks, the interview with a BPD detective, and routine examination at Moon Island, before going to legally purchase from the EOPS/AG approved roster at a federally licensed store outside the city limits.
I'm sure a giant billboard will make them realize the error of their ways and take a better path in life such as a career in urban organic farming.
Among anti-gun-regulation arguments, this might be the dumbest.
"Criminals don't obey laws, so what's the point of laws?" is awfully trivial to debunk. I quote Adam Gopnik, from his recent New Yorker piece in the wake of the San Bernadino attack:
"Snowball [i.e., really brain-dead argument against gun control] No. 3: Gun laws solve nothing because terrorists, whether in Paris or San Bernardino, aren’t the sort of people who care about or obey them. This snowball might properly be restated as follows: if a pickpocket steals your wallet on the bus, repeal the laws against pickpockets. If terrorists and criminals do still get guns, despite existing gun laws, there is no reason to have gun laws at all. But the goal of good social legislation is not to create impermeable dams that will stop every possible bad behavior; it is to put obstacles in their way. The imperfection of a system of restraints is an argument about the imperfection of all human systems. It is not an argument against restraints. What’s more, the special insight of recent criminology is to show that low walls work nearly as well as high ones, and are obviously much easier to build. Making any crime harder usually makes it much harder. If the terrorists in San Bernardino had had to work as hard at building guns as they did at building bombs, perhaps the guns would have worked as badly as the bombs did. (And, surely, it is a good thing that they were not able to go to a bomb store, or a bomb-owing middleman, for pre-made bombs.)"
The rest of his piece in The New Yorker is well worth reading, if you run into dumber-than-dogshit pro-gun arguments like this one a lot.
Passing more laws doesn't
Passing more laws doesn't help when the same problematic people aren't afraid of breaking them.
Make the problematic people afraid of breaking the current laws before piling more on the people which had nothing to do with the problem in the first place.
Enforcing the mandatory minimums would be a good start. But the DA's office and half the bench in Suffolk County can't be bothered. It's why the Uhub crime blotter is full of the same idiots re-offending all the freaking time.
Those people
"The people which had nothing to do with the problem" are very often the source of the guns used in crimes of all types. Burglars love finding guns they can steal, because they know they can get money for them, and guns are more portable than most of the stuff they steal. Then there are the "responsible gun owners" who sell their weapons in private sales. Even cops get guns stolen from their homes and cars. All those people have something to do with the problem, whether you want to admit it or not.
private sales
Are between two licensed individuals and it's all logged. Your point?
So victims of theft are now
So victims of theft are now responsible for crime? Were they wearing short skirts and asking for it?
If someone steals your car and commits a crime with it are you responsible?
If someone steals your medication and sells or uses it are you responsible?
Do people sue auto makers and drug companies for the misuse of theit products?
The only people responsible for crime are criminals. Trying to blame everyone and anything else for crappy behavior is condoning criminality.
Did I say that?
Why no, I did not. I was answering the assertion that the people who bought the guns in the first place "had nothing to do with the problem." I did not say that those people were responsible for crimes. It's not open to question that they were at some point responsible for the guns. If they had not purchased the guns and subsequently released them into society, either deliberately or inadvertently, those guns would not have been used in crimes. Here's a case in point:
Here we have a "responsible gun owner" who allowed his son to access the weapon, which wound up in the hand of Mr. Smart's assassin. Are you going to argue that the elder Lattime "had nothing to do with" the murder?
You're citing 1 case from 35 years ago.
Do better.
No, actually ...
I'm citing a case from yesterday, where a responsible gun owner wants his gun back that was used in a murder. If the actual murder isn't fresh enough for you, look up where the Sandy Hook guy got his weaponry.
This is what I mean by a brain-dead argument.
There you go again:"If a pickpocket steals your wallet on the bus, repeal the laws against pickpockets."
People that oppose the most basic gun legislation can't seem to spot the most obvious absurdities in their arguments. Do you oppose laws against murder because "Murders happen anyway, so what's the point?"
You're Mistaken
Every conviction in Suffolk County under Ch. 269, Sect. 10(a), ends with a sentence of at least the mandatory 18 months of committed time, and almost always additional time or probation. These cases are not broken down: judges can't do it, and prosecutors don't do it. In fact, we have so many of these cases that there's an entire trial team whose job it is to prosecute them in a centralized session downtown or refer them for indictment in Superior Court (where we sent upwards of 300 cases charging subsequent offenses or actual shootings last year).
The mandatory minimum does not apply to Ch. 269, Sect. 10(h), which covers firearms recovered in a home or business as opposed to the street, and it's true -- sometimes these defendants are not incarcerated. Sometimes defendants are acquitted, and sometimes cases are dismissed because prosecutors everywhere have an ethical obligation not to go forward when the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction. And sometimes, defendants re-offend after being convicted and sentenced to a house of correction or prison. But it's simply flat-out wrong to suggest that mandatory sentences aren't being imposed on gun offenses in Suffolk County.
Poorly thought out idea.
That list has included a young boy scout:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html?_r=0
A toddler:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/travel/no-fly-toddler/
A 4-year old boy:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10725741/ns/us_news-security/t/-year-old-turns...
The list is severely flawed. Not only has it listed the above kids, which I find ridiculous, this rule will also impact officers, security personal, as well as many others. The list isn't a list of names, it's a list of names similar to names for people of interest. Once there is a way for people to actually petition in an efficient way, then I'll likely agree it can be used. The current process isn't helpful at all for anyone who ends up on the list:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/lawyers-process-contest-fly-lis...
Not to mention Ted Kennedy
Not to mention Ted Kennedy was on the list.
woah woah woah
Let's not get up in arms about banning toddlers from flights.
Yeah
They probably would have got kicked out of Disneyland/world anyways.
So you think people on the no
So you think people on the no fly list should be allowed to fly? If there are problems in the no fly list work on them, but saying we should let anyone on the no fly list fly (or buy guns) seems to be throwing out an imperfect solution to none. Are those toddlers still on the no fly list? How about Kennedy? No. So it can be fixed. It can therefore be fixed for gun buyers who aren't terrorists.
How does one pass the
How does one pass the rigorous background checks and police interview to get and renew a gun licence in this state and still wind up on that list
Let me spit out those words you shoved in my mouth
Now that that's over. People didn't get removed from the list until 2010. You're ok with that level of bureaucracy and no due process? The first boy in my links above sat on the list for 6-years, for doing absolutely nothing! And you're ok with that. Good for you on screwing innocent people.
You know who wasn't on the no fly list? The two jackasses in San Bernardino. If you don't believe that, then ask yourself how they got here. A small hint, it wasn't by dangling from a carrier pigeon.
This idea of using the no-fly list to restrict firearms purchases is very short sighted. Are you also going to start asking we put restrictions on purchases of pipes? How about placing limits on purchases of large quantities of stick matches? What about those neighbors who have "pools" and 40-50lb buckets of chlorine? All three of the last require NO check at all and can be far more devastating, especially when combined.
Massachusetts has a far better record on gun violence than most of the country. Expanding the Massachusetts rules to other states will cut down on a lot of this devastation.
No fly list is a total joke
My then eleven year old son was on it.
We did the redress thing and Homeland Security was annoyed at congress and REFUSING to process documents and REFUSING to remove people.
Meanwhile, once my son hit 13, he could be snatched at the airport, interrogated, harassed, threatened, and arrested and disappeared, even. Because "no fly list". I'm serious.
I finally got fed up and copied all my correspondence to Congressman Markey's office. Within a week, he was off of the list BUT they sent all the confirmation and redress information to then Rep Markey's aide. Not to me, the parent!
The no fly list isn't just imperfect - IT IS CRIMINALLY STUPID AND USELESS.
Marty Walsh was asked about this yesterday.
He pointed at people who were on vacation for 20 years and are now returning home. Most likely meaning they were released from prison. I'm interested in attending this meeting, but it isn't my neighborhood. It's probably going to get pretty heated in there.
So what if residents who want
So what if residents who want to discuss gun violence in their neighborhood happen to be wealthy? So what if they're poor? So what if they're middle class? What's YOUR POINT?
Close enough
John.
I'm not sure the point you're trying to make although 26 people seem to know and like it.
Are you pointing out that those who commit the crimes are in a different area of the South End (albeit, less than a 7 minute walk) or that the people who are hosting the event don't want to deal with the problem b/c it's in Villa Victoria and they must not like those people?
Just wondering (seriously).
Having the meeting at Villa
Having the meeting at Villa Victoria would make sense, but would likely end with someone getting shot.
Villa...
Aka Torre Unidad has a few (giant facility) but there's also the infamous Lenox/Camden which hopefully gets purchased by NU or BU soon..
That would in my opinion, pretty much concrete the gentrification and 'end' the gun violence.
The South end is a very complex juxtaposition. Even more so these days with no more Long Island..
Just a thought about the no-fly list.
It clearly is imperfect, sweeps up a small fraction of people in its net that don't belong there. How do you feel about the much broader wholesale NSA surveillance of the phone records of tens of millions of Americans that our GOP presidential candidates are falling over themselves to reinstate?
I can understand arguing for one or the other, even if I don't agree with either. But fighting for one and against the other, given the relative scale of Constitution-trampling, is jaw-dropping hypocrisy. Have some self-awareness of the glaring contradiction there, FFS.
Assume that all Muslims that want to immigrate here might be terrorists and keep them out without any due process? Eavesdrop on all your private conversations in the event that you might be a terrorist yourself? No problem, never mind that the NSA admits that the program has never uncovered a real threat. But taking advantage of a list created by our intelligence agencies that flags potential terrorists, and suggesting that its members should have a harder time buying guns? Suddenly we're all about due process. Huh.
You may be able to add two plus two and make it equal five, but we Rational-Americans who aren't under the spell of the NRA have a little problem with that.
This is great that the
This is great that the community cares enough to come together, but if the criminal gun users won't be attending, it's hard to change their behavior. .
Should have moved to Newton
Should have moved to Newton
Is that you Shirley?
Leung?
proactive
They are being proactive coming together to discuss violence in their neighborhood....but I would bet the perpetrators of the violence are from other neighborhoods so not sure how effective they can be except at creating an environment of calling the cops every time they see someone they deem suspicious from another neighborhood. They need to work with the other neighborhoods that the hooligans come from to create an alternate path to the guns and hustling the hooligans know. Then the hooligans neighborhoods need to undo a few generations of bad choices, much easier said than done......
Still on a slide...
Well, we all know the South End went downhill when the gentleman appeared on his stoop without a jacket. The Back Bay is still the place to be.
I realize that this answer is
I realize that this answer is always wildly popular amongst UHub readers, but Villa Victoria, the complex between E. Brookline and Dedham (Northeast of Blacktone Square - Melena Cass Apts, I believe?), along with the immediate area needs to be cleansed.
Yes, I know, not everybody who lives on those blocks are criminals, but I'd wager that crime would almost certainly reduce if those areas were made better or *cough* gentrified.
Sure, crime happens all across the city, but when was the last Newbury Street shooting?
Can't the residents call for evictions?
Especially for those who are involved with these incidents?
The two biggest incidents I can remember are hot coffee, and one shooting:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20050122/News/301229989
http://www.universalhub.com/crime/man-shot-copley-square.html
I think both of these were on Boylston. So it's almost Newbury...
If things get bad enough, as
If things get bad enough, as it seems they have, I would hope the residents would come together to resolve this issue.
As great as evictions would be, I'm not entirely sure how possible/legal any of that is.
Based on what a realtor acquaintance once told me, the Villa Victoria community signed a 99-year lease with the city to provide affordable housing for low-income residents.
If that 99-year lease is real and/or true, back when it was signed, I doubt anyone could've imagined it would be set right smack in the middle of what became one of the city's most highly gentrified neighborhoods. And if that lease is real, it would need to be rescinded by the city, which I'm assuming would come with tons of legal battles, so it's not like it would ever happen overnight.
Arguably, the South End is currently the city's most popular and influential neighborhood (outside of Beacon Hill of course, but there's a reason these sorts of crimes don't typically occur in Beacon Hill...), so if anyone can make sweeping changes, it'd be South End residents.
I don't know enough about the evictions either
In Worcester tenants have been threatened with eviction if they don't get a job, or go to school:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/paternalism/420210/
I'm not sure if what Worcester is doing is legal, but I can see a benefit of what they're trying. I know residents who live in affordable housing. They work very hard and give back to their community. They don't like the negative stereotypes they're labeled with at all.
Very interesting article
Very interesting article about Worcester, thanks for sharing!
"Cleansed?"
I'm sure it was a total coincidence you chose this particular verb, given the context in which it most frequently appears.
Seriously, guys. You need to step up your dog-whistle bigotry game.
Yes, cleansed of crime and
Yes, cleansed of crime and criminals. As I mentioned in my original post, I realize not every resident living in the area is a criminal. You brought bigotry into it, not I.
Well, you said cleansed
And whether you meant it or not (and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt), you didn't qualify it until you were called out on it. Without a stated context, people will extrapolate what you meant.
As a side note, I live on East Brookline St and walk through Villa Victoria several times every day and never feel particularly unsafe and am even on a "howya" relationship with several of the residents I see regularly. The only time on my regular walk that I ever feel particularly unsafe is when trying to cross Washington St at the East/West Brookline Street intersection with its very poorly timed auto and pedestrian traffic signals.
It seems the war on guns is
It seems the war on guns is turning into the war on drugs and the war on gangs. Every time I read about another incident, I feel discouraged.