SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
Cracking Down on Gun Violence
Portland Mayor Sam Adams is proposing five new laws (PDF) aimed at curbing gun violence by keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and minors. The proposals come on the heels of a violent August, when at least nine gang-related shootings were reported in a three-day period. Some advocacy organizations, like Ceasefire Oregon, applaud the Mayor's efforts. But others, like the Oregon Firearms Federation, claim the laws would negatively impact responsible gun owners and fail to address the root causes of gun violence.
What do you think of Mayor Adams' proposals? What are the gun laws in your community? What do you believe can lower gun-related deaths and injuries? Do you legally own a gun? Would these laws affect you? Have you been involved in a gang? Would these laws affect gang violence?
GUESTS:
- Sam Adams: Mayor of Portland
- Kevin Starrett: President of the Oregon Firearms Federation
- Penny Okamato: Executive director for Ceasefire Oregon
- Mark McKechnie: Executive director of the Juvenile Rights Project
Tagged as: gangs · guns · mayor · sam adams
Photo credit: SoulRider22 / Creative Commons
-
What brilliance! NOT!
There are more firearms laws that the criminal element ignores then just about any other inanimate object I can think of. IF these existing laws and the rest of the various laws that these people regularly violate were seriously enforced there would not be a purported need for this poorly thought through band aid.
Target the demographic, arrest and convict the perpetrators make it stick and spend the money that will be wasted on actions like this on changing the culture that generates these criminals. -
After reading these new proposals, it is unclear how this will help reduce gang violence. It appears as a poorly shrouded attempt at restricting the 2nd Amendment, which the US Supreme Court just this year upheld and found the laws in DC and Chicago as illegal. If the goal is to make the city safer, how about addressing the problem of the gangs in the first place? Keeping kids in school, taking the money out of the illegal drug trade, destroying gangs and their infrastructure would all be much better than attempting to restrict a Constitutional right.
-
The Supreme Court recently struck down cityide handgun bans. In its wake, Chicago passed a new ordinace that
"allows handgun ownership in Chicago but establishes strict guidelines about who can apply for a permit. It prohibits gun shops within city limits and requires potential handgun owners to register their guns with the Chicago Police Department. In addition, it requires handgun owners to have both a city permit and a state firearms identification card.
The new ordinance also addresses where handguns can be stored, saying that home storage does not include a garage, front porch, or yard. Other excluded sites for storage are hotels, dorms, and group living facilities. For transport outside the home, guns would need to be broken down and not trigger ready."
Have you thought of tightening existing gun ordinances for everyone, much like Chicago, to help keep our streets safe?
What is the Oregon Firearms Federation lobbyist afraid of? If you're not a gun criminal, the majority of the proposed laws Mayor Adams is talking about won't apply to you?
-
Have you BEEN to the South Side of Chicago? I have this year and there is NO way Chicago is safer than Portland. And for the record, the Supreme Court will likely strike down (correctly) these new ordinances also.
-
Mayor Adams himself just said we're being flooded with ILLEGAL guns - so exactly why does en-acting laws that put prohibition on legal guns do to address illegal trafficing? Can he give any evidence that the guns these gang members are using are largely their parents/guardians guns?
Also, Mayor Adams also says that it's *gang activity* that's growing tremendously that's causing these "hot-spots". I've personally had more gang activity around my house - but so far not one gun incident. I see more tagging, more car break-ins, more petty crime, and petty street fights. I don't see how a few gun laws would address the underlying gang activity and gang violence problems.
Since, by his own admission, that the number of hotspots has almost doubled in the last few years shows there is an underlying lack of addressing these gangs at it's root. And since he's made himself the head of the police; I want to hear what he's doing to address those problems which seem to be growing rampantly.
-
Not a complete solution, but in LA they have successfully held several 'Gun Take back days'.
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_15047451
The less guns we have in Los Angeles, the less homicides we'll have," said Police Chief Charlie Beck at a morning news conference in Boyle Heights, where six people were shot, two fatally, overnight.
Handguns, rifles and shotguns fetched a $100 prepaid Visa card or Ralph's gift card, and assault guns garnered $200 each.
About 1,700 guns were gathered at last year's buy-back, and officials hoped to hit 2,500 this year,
-
knowing a few officers here - when these are done here many very valuable firearms are "traded" in at pennies on the dollar, and guess what? At least three of the officers brought their "take" over to my house so I could evaluate the value of the ones the officers were keeping. This does not remove guns from circulation, it just redistributes them.
-
Do you honestly think a criminal will trade a gun for $100 worth of goods that they know they can steal for free and keep their gun? As for "no questions asked", as many of these "trade ins" advertise, if a gun is used in a murder, and is traded in and destroyed, the police are that much further away from solving the murder. Is that fair to the families of victims? Does that get criminals arrested, or does it simply help them hide their crimes more efficiently, so they can keep on breaking the law with impunity?
WHo are the police REALLY helping with these programs?
-
The unstolen guns are melted down.
This concept does not address the 'crooked cops' issue.
-
When sufficient funds are available Ceasefire Oregon will host a gun turn-in for citizens who do not want their firearms, or who are unable to store them with absolute safety. This will give assurance that those firearms will not get into the wrong hands. (They are melted down.)
Watch the Ceasefire Oregon website for details.
-
With the cost of one 'lethal incident' (i.e. Medical, law enforcement time, judicial cost, incareration, etc.), it would seem like if the take back' prevented just a couple 'events', it would be benifical to the city's fiscal bottom line.
-
I got rid of an old low-interest shotgun that was falling apart at one of these. I couldn't sell it at a gun show for $10. I know this because I tried. I got $50 in video rentals for it.
That's all the good these "buy backs" do. I didn't spot any gang types there turning in their guns and repenting for Blockbuster certificates. Just a lot of older people who were getting rid of their guns. Very sad, since older people are easy targets for criminals. Still, it is their choice. Of course a collector with several gun safes would have been happy to give someone on a fixed income good money for a WWII-era M1 Carbine made by Rockola and worth thousands of dollars. I hope those people enjoyed watching those rented video tapes while eating Hamburger Helper bought with food stamps...
-
Why would anyone believe Sam?? An admitted liar.... And Sam, where in the hell is the neighborhood "hazelhurst" as you just mentioned? A little out of touch maybe?
-
Probably meant Hazelwood
-
Violence is the problem, not the tools used. If gangs still used knives, chains and other make-shift weapons we wouldn't pass laws to ban those. Addressing the REAL, ROOT causes of violence in our culture/familes is the essential but difficult thing.
Research shows that pouring money into Early Intervention and Mental Health services EARLIER in a person's life/childhood can drastically reduce the causes of violence and crime.
As for guns, this woman feels better with Uncle Sam's Equalizer in the house. I would stand little to no chance defending my children in a hand-to-hand fight with a male intruder.
Respectfully,
Jennifer Coppock RN
(Another gun-toter, meat-eater Lefty)
-
"(Another gun-toter, meat-eater Lefty)"
I think the far right would be surprised, probably even shocked, to know how many of us there are.
I used to be a member of the NRA until they got so extreme and advocated only and unquestionly, for far right Conservative Republicans.
(Another gun-toter, meat-eater Lefty), I like that, it would make a good bumper sticker!
-
The NRA supported the Righties only because the "Well-Armed Vociferous Lefties" are so few and far between, sadly. We need more of them to even out the playing field and get voices of reason on the Red and Blue sides to find an appropriate color of Purple to paint the gun debate with.
I'm moderate, I shudder at what both sides of the political spectrum do "to protect us," but I do know that shooting fish in a barrel is a LOT harder when the fish are capable of shooting back...
I also probably would have voted for Howard Dean. So there. ;)
-
@ pdx97206 — Fri Sept. 3rd 11:30a.m.
I read that and I agree.
-
I am a gun owner/enthusiest living close in portland. I completly agree with the mayor. These new laws would not affect me at all, or any other legal gun owner. I believe that in court a child who used a parents firearm in self defense would not be charged with a crime upon the right circumstances. these new laws are worth a try, i wish people would stop standing in the way when it comes to making this a bettrer place. when these walls are put up we all lose.
-
So, taking away your rights to pass a law with doubious and legally questionable stance is 'making this a better place'?
I for one am disturbed by the great number of civil liberties we as citizens are just handing over to the goverment for doubious reasons like Mayor Adam's. Crime in my neighborhood is growing rampantly - to the point car thefts and breakins are happening nearly daily. None of these are gun related, but there sure are more gang symbols and 'shady characters' around. I don't see how any of these new laws will stop that - so stop promoting someone who's clearly doing a classic bait-and-switch with your civil liberties.
"A man who will trade his freedom for safety deserves, and will get, neither" - Benjamin Franklin
-
Did you know that there was talk about prosecuting Assistant Principal Joel Myrick for using a handgun stored in his vehicle to stop the student shooter in the Pearl, Mississippi school shootings because he violated the Safe Schools gun-free zone law? Fortunately cooler heads prevailed in the aftermath of the tragedy.
Sam Adams has already shown that he will pursue whatever action he thinks is politically expedient for him in the end. If prosecution works for him in the end so that he can show that he is "tough on crime," you bet he'll do it. If the law is there, "I believe" and "I wish" go out the window in the name of making a name for one's self in the political world. All you have to do is watch the news to see this at work on a daily basis.
-
Leaving aside the issue of providing better educational and cultrual infrastructure to reduce gang activity overall, it seems to me the formula for reducing urban gun violence is very simple: Fewer guns in the city = fewer shootings in the city. By making it more difficult to own a gun aren't we reducing the overall gun supply? Distinguishing between "legal" and "illegal" guns is irrelevant as a single gun can move from being legal to being illegal in an instant.
The old argument that "Guns don't kill, people do" may be true, but not having a gun sure makes it a lot harder. Not to mention you rarely hear of innocent people on the street being killed by "stray" stabbings ...
-
I'll continue to argue that this is not a gun problem - it's a gang problem at it's core. Sure, less guns will help, but all the gang activity in my neighborhood is related to all types of petty crime and theft, fights, to the point of not feeling at all safe to go out on the streets at night.
These gun laws won't do anything to stop this.
-
Tell that to the two people in Washington who had acid thrown in their faces.
-
This worked VERY well for Washington DC! Their gun crimes plummeted when they enacted the toughest gun laws in the nation back around 1975. Shootings dropped, drug problems evaporated, and crime virtually disappeared.
Oh wait, that's right, they became the murder capital of the nation. My bad.
We could follow the UK's lead, or Australia's lead, or even Canada's lead, but they also saw spikes in violent crime following extreme gun control laws. Now, after Canada has admitted that their gun crimes in places like Toronto have soared, and the cost of their legislation ballooned from a promised $2 million to $1 billion in 2005, the government is looking at repealing these laws.
But hey, they outlawed guns!!!
-
I'm for arms ownership rights but wild talking paranoid fear-mongering gun nuts like this Oregon Firearms Federation guest don't help the cause at all, in fact they drive apart the people who don't understand the reasons for 2nd Amendment rights and the proper use of guns.
I think that education is the answer, not fear-mongering.
I'd rather have on a moderate voice from places like Switzerland or some other place with reasonable gun rights and responsibility laws.
-
I agree. The broad-stroke view of Swiss gun control: All males are required to be part of the state militia. They have the third-highest firearms ownership ratio in the world. Every male member of the household is required to have their government-issued fully-automatice rifle and semiautomatic handgun with ammunition in their home, ready to use. After their term of service, the government turns the auto rifle into a semi-auto rifle and sends it back to the former service member, who also keeps his handgun. Government-produced ammunition is sold at-cost. The government encourages and sponsors recreational shooting for both men and women, and hosts an annual shooting competition that sees some 200,000 people attend. The rate of death by criminal gun use approximately one for every 250,000 people annually. New sales of hunting guns are not recorded or tracked by the government. The most commonly owned type of gun is an "assault weapon."
If someone thinks the United States has a "gun problem" and not a behavior problem, one only needs to look at Switzerland.
-
@ pdx97206 — Fri Sept. 3rd 10:55a.m.
Exactly!
And I'd add all females to the militia too with all of the same requirements. And I'd start teaching children all about guns as early as possible in the schools, so that they respect and not fear them, and know how to properly use them.
I like the US Marines concept that every Marine is a Rifleman, and I'd like that to apply to every American man, woman, child, wheelchair bound, etc.
-
I served as jury foreman for Mult. Co. Court's drug cases for a month a few years back. I personally witnessed one prosecuting attorney from the DA's office decide not to pursue gun charges on a suspect for a stolen handgun because she (Brenda was her first name, I believe) just didn't want to go back upstairs to get the paperwork pertaining to it, to share with the grand jury. If Mr. Adams thinks an arrest equals a conviction, he might think again.
If police find a gin laying around in a home when they enter it, and an adult is present, the police only need to ask for consent to look at the gun. This is already covered in Oregon law. They look at the serial number, call the sheriff's office, and run that number. If it comes up stolen, the illegal gun is off the street and the suspect is arrested. IF ADAMS IS TRYING TO TARGET ILLEGAL GUNS, THE LAW ALREADY ALLOWS POLICE TO DO WHAT HE IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH!
-
One person's "right" to have a gun without regulations is another person's death sentence. Those who believe strongly in having access to firearms need to work with the Mayor and Portland City Council to develop a policy that keeps guns out of the hands of those who abuse them.
With its history of public involvement and the recent emphasis by city leaders on equity, Portland should be the place where we figure out the breadth of policies that address the root causes of gun violence and the gun lobby should be supporting the development of those policies. Effective policies to curb violence will support the gun lobby's own freedoms.
Also, your caller from Canby is defensive, vague, and rude.
-
I wish I had realised this discussion was going on. I'm late to the game and really really wanted to call in.
Firstly; Laws effect whom? Those who follow them. Do criminals follow laws? No. Thusly...more laws make little to no sense.
Secondly; From what laws pertaining to guns I've seen, heard of, and researched it is not a matter of MORE laws, but actually enforcing those that exist currently.
Finally; China's gun laws work, right? The UK's gun laws work, right? Australia's gun laws work, right?
I'm sick of politicians wanting to do good by opening their mouths and proclaiming that book law will prevail when it is actually feet-on-the ground cops getting the guns out of CRIMINAL hands that make the difference. You cut my local cop-shop's funding, pass laws that make carrying a defensive weapon illegal and expect me to live free and flourish?
Logic is a lost art.
-
Well said Min - you hit it right on the head. The decrease in violence in New York only came after they hired more police. There have been several studies done that say more boots on the street is *the* most effective way to reduce crime.
Sounds like Mayor Adams is doing the classic politician move - just pass some candy legislation and say you've 'done something'. He'll take credit for it next election.
Meanwhile, this self-appointed head of 'state' (mayor) and head of 'military' (police) will continue to not address the crime in our neighborhoods.
I've seen a HUGE rise of crime in my neighborhood with absolutely no end in sight. Car breakins and thefts are rampant to the point I'm seriously considering getting a locked garage so I'll have a car when I wake up each morning.
-
"Car breakins and thefts are rampant to the point I'm seriously considering getting a locked garage so I'll have a car when I wake up each morning. tangoGal89 — Fri Sept. 3rd 10:06a.m."
Wealthy people in NYC own old beat up cars that they park on the street, unlocked, so that nobody bothers to break into or steal them.
And a favorite trick is to wrap up garbage like a christmas or birthday present and leave it on the back seat to be stolen, what fun!
-
Although I see no good reason to stop the mayor's proposed new laws, I think we are all missing the real problem. The source of the problem is incompetent parenting. The only socially acceptable remedy is facilitating abortions and supporting planned parenthood. It is entirely unfair to lay the blame on the schools, teachers or gun availability.
-
Creating a "city crime" for not reporting lost or stolen guns to police is a bad idea.
The only thing it will do is turn the VICTIM of a CRIME (theft), into a CRIMINAL. A law breaker, simply because they may not yet realize that they themselves have been victimized (stolen from).
I hardly ever use my gun. Maybe 1 or 2 target shooting trips into the mountain a year. So I might not notice my gun missing for what could easily be months. That should not make me a criminal.
Reporting a gun lost or stolen will Not prevent guns from being stolen and used in crimes! Do you really think this law will somehow deter criminals from stealing and using guns? No, it won't.
It will NOT stop people from stealing and using guns illegally!
It will NOT make a stolen gun magically appear!
It will NOT remove a stolen gun from the hands of someone who plans to use it in a crime!
There is NO upside to this law.
Well, I guess you could say it's good for job security if your a cop or DA.
For Cooks, Food = Paychecks
For Car Dealers, Cars = Paychecks
Soooo........For Cops, Crimes = Paychecks
If someone steels my gun kills someone and the police catch him. They get him and me for being stolen from. thats 2 crimes committed, with 2 convictions. This proves them effective. Effective justifies budget. Budget = Paychecks. If they don't catch him, hey at least they still get me. The two crimes still happened justifying the need for police budget, and they still solved one. Catching me! Again justifying their need/budget/paycheck.
Without this law they would only be able to claim a single crime had been committed. With this law they get 2. Yet still have NO impact on gun theft or crimes committed with stolen guns. Catching someone after the fact is nice, but does not undue what was already done. Nor prevent it from happening in the first place.
-
The mayor painfully demonstrates why state legislators had the foresight to fully occupy the space of firearms regulation and had preempted local government from doing so.
He's either cynically grandstanding, or worse incapable of rational thinking. Either way, he's showing he's unfit to be mayor.
One learns in clinical statistics that "correlation is not causation". Somehow the mayor has yet to learn this basic truth.
With more privately owned guns than people in this country, most of us manage to not break the law. Obviously the guns themselves are not the cause.
If "juveniles who've been adjudicated of a gun crime" are still exhibiting unlawful, recidivist behavior, then quite obviously the rehabilitative process is failing and needs to be reformed.
Why isn't this front and center in the mayor's sights?
If people are not dissuaded from breaking the law, adding more laws is not going to be effective: one definition of insanity is "repeating the same actions, while expecting differing outcomes".
The mayor's disbelief in basic determinism (and causality) rises to this definition of insanity.
-
(cont)
The mayor also seems to be completely oblivious to recent Supreme Court rulings regarding similar Chicago and D.C. laws, and is advocating a law that is indefensible in its constitutionality (both Oregon and US), creating the likelihood that the city will have an expensive legal battle which it can only lose... while simultaneously bemoaning budget shortfalls.
This too would seem to be repeating the same behavior, but expecting a different outcome.
In our household growing up, guns weren't locked up. We knew the revolver was on the top shelf of my dad's closet, and that it was always loaded. We knew we weren't to "mess with it", but it was there if we needed it to defend ourselves, and had all been trained in how to handle a gun by the time we were 10.
None of us grew up to be gangbangers, and indeed I carry regularly and am licensed to carry in 17 states.
The mayor highlights fringe episodical "evidence" as justifying his reasoning, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He is being disingenuous in the extreme.
It's my sincere belief that the mayor knows that the proposed measures won't succeed, but desperately wants to be able to point to a (failed and misguided) attempt to do something that was defeated by "reactionary forces" less enlightened and progressive than himself.
The mayor's true defeat will be woolly-minded irrational proposals that are meant to appeal to "feel good populism" without actually being effective.
Since the mayor seems to be fixated on correlation (at the cost of considering causation), perhaps he should copy city laws that have actually been successful--such as Project Exile, which increased the penalties for existing crimes--rather than trying to redefine more behaviors as illegal (such as having guns not locked up).
-
Comments are now closed.
r