Yep, that's right. I woke up this morning and read Baddboy's comments, and took up the challenge: research violent crime in the DC area in search of trends that MIGHT be associated with gun-control laws.
In less than 10 minutes, I had determined the following:
Washington D.C. is a very violent place, and has been for the last 38 years. In 1969, that's when the violent crime in the metro area surpassed the national average for the first time, and it hasn't gone below that average since.
In 1975 the Firearms Control Regulations Act went into effect in DC, and the city then went on to see the violent crime rate rise every year until 1994. Much of this Act was later deemed unconstitutional and rescinded or repealed, but much of it is still in place, and I am assuming that the current mayor is trying to get some teeth back into it.
Since 1994, there has been a marked and rather steady decline in violent crime (and petty crime) in the city of DC. No substantial easing of gun control legislation has occurred in the metro area, so one cannot attribute this reversal to gun control removal, but it certainly can't be attributed to gun control itself, either.
It is my opinion (after only an hour of research) that the decrease in crime is DIRECTLY related to programs of urban renewal and "gentrification" of neighborhoods like the Shaw, Le Droit Park, and Columbia Heights (I am only passingly familiar with these neighborhoods... my experience in DC is very limited, and then mostly in the Georgetown district). Extending metro rail services into the Shaw and the Heights can be directly connected to the increase in interest in run-down property and its renewal and improvement... and I'm sure the other neighborhoods can show similar results, as well.
I am the first to admit that I was an ardent believer in the fallacy of the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" argument, always making the case that the prerogative of the State (read Nation) to maintain a standing, uniformed Army superseded the right of the individual to keep arms for the protection of the same State. In the years since 9-11, I have read an awful lot on this issue, and I have become convinced that the letter of the Law is correct, and the Right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment applies to all US citizens equally, regardless of enlistment in a standing Army.
(NOTE: My "conversion" was not some magical, Loyolan experience of epiphany-like enlightenment... so Ryan can stop gloating. While I may now agree that the Constitution does guaranty the right to keep and bear arms, nothing prevents the government from looking to register these said same arms and require manufacturer safety measures (like trigger-locks, etc), nor from determining that certain types of weapons do not constitute "civilian arms"... fully automatic weapons, explosives, rocket-propelled weapons, et al. This is simply common sense, and I'll hear no "slippery slope" arguments to the contrary!)
Federal or (outside of the DC area) State programs of incentive and assistance in renovating, updating and improving existing property in problem neighborhoods is nothing new, but what it is is a constant target of GOP budgetary cuts in the most troubled sectors of our society. Were the Feds to focus such efforts in places like DC, East St Louis, Miami's north side, all of New Orleans, Kansas City (near the river, both banks), Atlanta's south side, Detroit, et al... I am convinced that violent crime in ALL these cities would drop dramaticly, while municiple revenues would go up and racial and ethnic economic disparity would go down.
This should not be considered a government "hand out"... but instead, it should be considered an investment by the Government in communities and municipalities across the country, with the rewards reaped in the gradual but eventual reduction in expenses over the short course of 5 to 15 years.
Win-Win, with no losers in the equation. How is this bad?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
HEHE, I told you that place sucks.
Well I'm not sure where to start so since I usually speak from my gut here it goes. I believe you could pour money into those cities and concentrate it in the worst crime ridden neighborhoods for the next 50 years and it would only make a dent in the amount of crime being committed. As good as money is at fixing alot of things, it takes alot of money and even more time for money to change a portion of our culture. See money isn't the cure all for the problems of inner city violence, the drug culture that was born from the poverty and despair within the inner city, the mistrust of law enforcement and the perception within those communites that being a criminal makes you some sort of Robin Hood. All of this is much deeper than money, it has become cultural and when that happens money is of very little use. I'm not saying its of no use but it is no longer the singular answer that it may have once been.
Here is what I know, gun violence is a by product of one thing... DRUGS. Since the 1960's the drug epidemic has been the catalyst for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States especially within the cities that you stated. Doesn't matter if it was herion, cocaine in any of its many forms but especially crack, meth amphetamines, LSD, PCP or any of the many other designer drugs that are being created today.
So when a city like Washington DC tries to tell me that gun control within their world will decrease the amount of violent crime all it does is make me want to hang my head and cry and then it just makes me angry...guns are not killing people, people are killing people because of drugs. If we find a way to stop the flow of drugs and peoples percieved need for drugs you will proportianally decrease the amount of gun violence. There is a direct link between the two.
There will always be some ass that decides he wants to kill someone for some stupid reason. The human race is its own paradox, we are capable of kindness and compassion that is unrivaled by any other species and at the same time we are capable of violence beyond comprehension to other human beings. You will find this to be true throughout history so whether it is clubbing some poor caveman to death with a rock, hanging from a cross or putting a bullet in some 13 year old kid for dealing crack on the wrong street corner there will always be violence but in this day and age if we can find a way to stop the drugs we will find a way to stop the vast majority of the gun violence.
once again just one mans opinion
Badboy
Post a Comment