Hey, there! Log in / Register

Police commissioner: Guns flooding Boston as fast as police can take them off the streets

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.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

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.

up
Voting closed 0

...they don't believe it will help, obviously. You don't convince people by repeating something they've heard a hundred times before.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

I didn't say that it was a solution; just that it seems like a nonsensical prioritization of legislation.

But it's not an either-or thing, is it?

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

A national restriction on weapons would not work in the U.S.

up
Voting closed 0

Worked well for the Germans, Russians, and Chinese..

up
Voting closed 0

You forgot Poland Australia.

up
Voting closed 0

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?

up
Voting closed 0

We're special, and nothing that works anywhere else on the planet can possibly work here.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

Britain is probably a closer comparison than anywhere else in the world, and they have *far* fewer gun deaths than we do.

up
Voting closed 0

They had a mass-shooting problem, and they solved it with gun control.

up
Voting closed 0

Good luck with ratification. Won't happen in either of our lifetimes.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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?

up
Voting closed 0

If you want smoke detectors in your house, why don't you become a firefighter?

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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,

up
Voting closed 0

You know that almost every other city/town in the state issues unrestricted licenses and hasn't turned into the wild west?

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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."

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

Cambridge issues ALP?

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

With a letter and a personal interview to the chief yeah. They respect Civil Rights unlike Boston & Brookline.

up
Voting closed 0

That would be news to me as well.

up
Voting closed 0

"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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

The buyback problem only provides financial incentives for handgun, semi-auto, etc... not even rifles or shotguns, I doubt they'd accept a prop.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

and fucking the law abiding guy waiting in line for the same position. You cant reward bad behavior!

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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!

up
Voting closed 0

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?

up
Voting closed 0

That's all gangsters need to leave the gangster mentality in the rear view.

Just ask Aaron Hernandez.

up
Voting closed 0

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?

up
Voting closed 0

You're just a saint, and everyone on this thread knew that somehow this would come back to you.

up
Voting closed 0

...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.

up
Voting closed 0

Someone does a good thing, and all you can do is piss on it.

Welcome to Boston.

up
Voting closed 0

Actually it's quite true: Employment is one of the most effective deterrents to gang membership, and that applies to both current members and future ones.

up
Voting closed 0

Mel Steele is a recent example. You dont just walk away from a gang!

up
Voting closed 0

Are you suggesting that a thug cannot have a job and continue to commit crimes during his time off? Just curious

up
Voting closed 0

What do you do when you get done with work? Put your feet up and watch TV, probably. If you're very energetic, you might go to the gym. But go out and commit crimes?

Having a job does provide an anchor and a reality check. Most of us can probably remember a time when our friends wanted to stay out late, and maybe for the first time we thought, "Not worth what I'll go through in the morning" and called it a night. Was there anything stopping you from drinking all night? No, you stopped yourself because you had to get up and go to work in the morning. I think that's the effect that's being referred to here.

up
Voting closed 0

But go out and commit crimes?

And not pay.

up
Voting closed 0

I am a long time reader and fan of this blog, but your personal views and one sided predicatsble jabs are starting to turn me off. I have been freqenting this blog less and less. I don't care if you don't care, but wanted to share.

up
Voting closed 0

I haven't changed my views on things. What has happened is the site's seeing more visits from cranky people who seem to have grown tired of the Herald comment sections. And no, I'm not just going to sit back and let them do to my site (yeah, it is personal) what they've done there.

up
Voting closed 0

And we thank you for that!

What has happened is the site's seeing more visits from cranky people who seem to have grown tired of the Herald comment sections.

You might as well call it BDC Comments also.. its just gotten bad.. very bad. It's almost hard to read them now. All the intelligent people have moved here, and away from BDC and the herald (I remember I have DECENT intelligent comments on there, now its all vapid comments)

up
Voting closed 0

The people who benefited from it were all younger (under 20 years of age if I read correctly). I think one of the best ways to end all of the violence in the city is to increase its level of education, especially in areas which experience the most poverty. Who's to say they're taking a job away from someone else?. Do you really want to walk into the "ghetto" slums and work on houses for EBT holders and section-8 residents? No? Well these kids most likely live there and will benefit from their environment as they themselves improve it. I would like to see more programs like this and fewer kids being tossed aside like meaningless rubbish.

up
Voting closed 0

Seriously. Is there a similar program for non-violent youth? I doubt it.

up
Voting closed 0

Building Pathways (more) is one example.

up
Voting closed 0

Non violent offenders.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I do understand the point of view of 'rewarding bad behavior'. ROCA does a similar thing, you stay in their program and stay out of trouble they pay you. Not sure if this is right thing to do. Sorry I don't.

I'm sorry but I am apart of the old camp that if you really want to do something, you'll do it. And if you don't want to, you won't. Meaning if you want to leave the gang or that life, you have to *want* to do it, not because you're being paid to do so. My old High School had a motto, and its fitting "No reward without effort". You have put effort into it, not do it 'just because'. Giving kids money not to do something just doesn't seem like the right thing to do, as it needs to be earned in a big way.

Now as far as the IBEW's claim. Maybe. *maybe* since its job training, and you get something for your effort (more than just a check), but not sure if I'd want to give kids with violent backgrounds access to power tools (hey! someone had to say it)

It would be interested to see how this works out in the end and how well it really does pay off. And how many kids stay gang/drug/violence free after. (happy to entertain statistic links if anyone has them!)

up
Voting closed 0

It doesn't work that way for people who don't know they have options, or don't have the options that you grew up with.

I grew up in a pretty rough place, and I've seen how this works firsthand.

up
Voting closed 0

This is why the job training point was key.. not just handing someone cash for 'being good'. You have to work at it to get the training.

Even where I grew up in rural NH, we had a vocational school attached to our high school. Its where state-funded VOC programs were. Marketing, hairdressing, home construction, day care.... all skills that the day you graduated HS you could immediately use. I know more girls who now work in hair salons because of the training (and certification) the voc gave them.

So yes it does work...

up
Voting closed 0

Times change. If you were to back to your high school, what would you find today? Would you still find vocational programs, or would they be gone or greatly reduced because of budget cuts? Whatever programs are there, would they be teaching skills that you could now, today, actually get a job where you could earn a living wage? Maybe...maybe not.

I think it's natural for us grown folks to look to what worked for us as a way forward for young people today. But we do have to consider whether their options are the same as ours before we prescribe the same medicine, don't you agree?

up
Voting closed 0

This is New Hampshire.

Times change. If you were to back to your high school, what would you find today? Would you still find vocational programs, or would they be gone or greatly reduced because of budget cuts? Whatever programs are there, would they be teaching skills that you could now, today, actually get a job where you could earn a living wage? Maybe...maybe not.

Those same programs are still in place and have been expanded on. Why? because New Hampshire Schools and the local involved SAU's see value in these programs. Not only do the offer the original programs i refer to, but also now offer PC Repair/A+ Cert, Introduction to Microsoft Systems (for MCSA cert), CAD Design, Cisco Router Training (for CCNA certs), Expanded Home Building (this class you build a modular home!), Farming technologies, Advanced Business Accounting, and an advanced Culinary Arts program.

And as far as living wage.. first off, again, NH. You can survive on 10/hr. And trust me, any wage is better than living off welfare, which many of my former fellow residents who barely graduated (or got a GED) now collect on. And many of the newer IT-related programs (i.e. computer ones), Home building (i.e. construction), and Accounting programs do offer higher pay than 10/hr too.

I'll also add the same kids who went to the voc school, also had less issues with drugs too! (not all but some)

ok ok I guess I answered my original post.. it does work. Providing its a skill set and not a hand out.

up
Voting closed 0

It may be my years in tech have ruined my credulity, but I have a tough time thinking of MSCA cert as a path forward.

Seriously, I don't know the other programs, but the tech offerings don't strike me as exactly cutting edge. Sorry, I'm not trying to be negative, but this is the sort of thing that I've seen before from job training programs: they're behind the times. So, I stand behind my original question.

up
Voting closed 0

Let me put it to you this way, minus voc classes, out of High School what job could YOU get that do not require to ask "do you what fries with that" or "paper or plastic". Very very few.

It may be my years in tech have ruined my credulity, but I have a tough time thinking of MSCA cert as a path forward.

I'm in tech also. Celebrated my 22nd year this year. I don't have any M$ certs at all or hell a degree for that matter, but I managed to do OK. (I should also state that all these IT-related classes at the Voc were offered the following year after I graduated!)

You obviously haven't looked in a while for work. Most jobs, and yes even entry level IT jobs, now pretty much require a MCP or some sort of certification to even be looked at (if you don't have a MIS degree). It was very very hard for me the last time. Not so much for the 'no degree' but I had virtually no way to prove knowledge, even though I have glowing references. The only way to prove it was in an interview which I got passed over on that for people who had CCNA's, MCSA's, etc because on paper they at least took, passed, and got certified aka can prove knowledge. (of course this does not mean they retained any of it, but stupid recruiters don't know that)

I am gathering that you're a Un*x person too. Typically Linux folks shun anything Microsoft. Sorry bud, MCSX is an industry standard for Microsoft peeps and is taken pretty seriously. And before you blow me off because I support Microsoft, I am also a Linux and Macintosh person too. I'm equally balanced toward any of them, except Microsoft seems to get me the most jobs.

I'm sorry I just disagree with you. I'm in the industry also, and yes I see the pumping out of everyone (except myself) of Microsoft Certs in the industry. And yes it over saturated the market, but because of that, its pretty much a required deal now. Hell, even a friend of mine (a young friend) who is in college for Business Accounting will walk away with a certification in Microsoft Office because of the way the classes work.

And finally, you may not think these are great or cutting edge, but for some kid who has zero direction in their life, its a start. Its a start to get them interested in something.. something that doesn't involve gangs or drugs, and may turn into a career later on due to increased interest. (and this is how I got my start in IT, I got a job at 15 at an ISP answering a support line... 22 years later here I am)

Oh and one more thing.. schools and voc are always behind. Why? because to offer bleeding edge technology courses never works. Hell, I took some Citrix classes last year (courtesy of my last company) and they were two versions behind. Why? Because course material needs to be written, tested, and deployed before they can be used in a class room. They need to be proven to work. Sure getting MCSX in Windows Server 2008 R2 may not be bleeding edge, but its better than say 10 year old Windows 2000 course wear.

Again, simply, it's a start for someone who may not have anything else good going on in their life and ask the question of "what do you want to do with your life?"

up
Voting closed 0

Are you familiar with the phrase "necessary but not sufficient condition"? A certification is a credential, and that's all. Any hiring manager knows that when it comes to finding someone who can actually do the job, it doesn't really tell you anything. A certification course is not enough to equip someone to go out and get a job. You need to do more than that.

And don't call me "bud", son.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes well aware of that. But unfortunately these days you deal with silly recruiters who are idiots.

really? a certification doesn't equip you to go out and get a job? Well yeah in terms of job searching skills (i.e. resumes, searching, interviewing), sure, they aren't provided in a certification course. Duh. I wouldn't expect them to be. Other courses would serve that purpose. But what certs do is make someone look better on that resume. A heck of a lot more than someone starting out with no degree and no experience. Many entry level positions just require a MCP or above now. And any entry level IT job is far better (and probably pays a bit more) than most retail and food service jobs. That's one of the main points of these programs.

Plus the other point of these programs isn't just so people can get jobs (although its the main idea), is to get kids interested in something else that doesn't involve drugs or gangs. Many kids who go to these program don't have much else going on, and a grim future. Many gangs pray on this fear. These Voc Ed programs shows them that, yes, there "within reach" alternatives to gangs and drugs. The hope is that this just sets them on the right path, to either more training, college, or to join the workforce to be productive citizens.

PS - You also doubt if certification courses provide jobs. If we remove the IT certs we are arguing about. I say absolutely yes it does. I can't believe I forgot the cornerstone of my HS's voc ed program.. a CNA program. Sure a CNA is a sucky job. But it pays more than retail, and I read in the local paper a few months ago that most graduates of the program eventually get jobs and/or get more training to a LPN and then eventually a RN. Do you know how relatives and friends of mine (that all attended the Voc)? More than I can count. I have four RNs in my family so far.. and more finishing up the RN.

Getting on the right path.. think about it, dad.

up
Voting closed 0

think about it, dad.

Oh, another cheap shit-stirring swipe? Now, see, right there you disqualified yourself from having anything to say about what keeps people out of trouble. Think about it.

up
Voting closed 0

Listen a-hole.. want to talk about "Cheap Shit-Stirring Swipe"?

Didn't you say above:

And don't call me "bud", son.

You started it first. I just dish it back. Fair Play.

PS Love how you had absolutely nothing else to say except a pot shot at me. Wanna run the

right there you disqualified yourself from having anything to say about what keeps people out of trouble

by me again because you're just did it yourself. I also think you know I'm right.. hard for an old fart like yourself to admit they are 100% wrong. *hiss*

PPS - I know what its like. I *was* one of those kids.. it was a VOC program that saved me. Once again, folks on here making big assumptions about me when they really have no clue. Thanks for playing... it's been fun.

up
Voting closed 0

... a pretty rude and dismissive term of address.

up
Voting closed 0

Hanging out with your gangbanger buddies in the big house for a year, probably less, is seen as a rite of passage. Going away for at least five years, on the other hand, is a major inconvenience at the very least, and will deter all but the most hardened gangbangers. Also, it costs around $300,000 on average to treat a gunshot victim, and $30,000 to lock a thug up for a year - do the math...

up
Voting closed 0

Err, the relationship between sentence length and deterrence of crime is basically nonexistent. Certainly not something that has been supported by real data. In order for a punishment to be an effective deterrent, the criminal must first actually care about their future and believe that they have a chance at a future.

Also, what do you think happens to someone who had zero qualifications other than being a gangster to begin with gets out of jail after 5 years?

up
Voting closed 0

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."

I'd say make it 10!

up
Voting closed 0

Um the UK has a MUCH higher rate of violent crime than the US. The number of knife related crimes in London alone is staggering.

up
Voting closed 0

Between getting stabbed or shot I'll take stabbed. Also hard to stab long distance and hard to stab 2+ people before someone beats the cap out of you. Gimme knives over guns any day. Stupid argument.

up
Voting closed 0

The British definition of violent crime includes all crimes against the person, including all robberies, simple assaults and all sexual offenses, as opposed to the USA which only counts forcible rape and aggravated assault.

Its a bit like saying the obesity rate in Canada is higher than the USA when anyone 10 pounds over weight is obese in Canada but the clinical definition is 100 pounds over weight in the USA.

up
Voting closed 0

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-...

Some advice for Mr. Swann: when you see statistics that look unbelievable, you probably shouldn’t believe them, at least until you dig deeper into the data. Based on these figures, it appears that Britain is over 4 times more violent than the US, and since this is all he gives you, that is exactly what he leads his viewers to believe.

What Swann either doesn’t know, or simply doesn’t bother to tell his viewers, is that the definitions for “violent crime” are very different in the US and Britain, and the methodologies of the two statistics he cites are also different. (He probably simply doesn’t realize this: it appears that he lifted his data wholesale from a story in the Daily Mail, without checking it–something you might expect a fact checker to have done.)

I would also point out that even while urban crime rates across the US have been falling for decades, New York City's homicide rate (as of 2009) was 3.5 times that of London, which is presumably more of an apples-to-apples comparison.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/30/new-york-crime-free...

up
Voting closed 0

Frank Baker (who was also at the meeting) is the Dorchester district councilor, Yancey represents Mattapan and parts of Roxbury and Hyde Park.

up
Voting closed 0

Not Hyde Park, and only part of Mattapan. A good part of his district is still in Dorchester.

up
Voting closed 0

Charles Yancey does not represent Roxbury or HP— and he only has a small piece of Mattapan now, something he'll tell you he is not happy about. Yancey mainly represents Dorchester, where he lives and has lived for four decades. People who call him the councilor from Mattapan show their ignorance— he's never lived there.

up
Voting closed 0

Doesn't anything good ever come out of Florida?

Can we please finally be done with it and sell it to Cuba?

up
Voting closed 0

That's great news about the guns.

No one asked him about the 25% increase in homicides this year, though?

up
Voting closed 0

Did you even read the article Adam wrote?

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.

up
Voting closed 0

I was there any many people left shaking their heads when the police brass and politicians couldn't handle simple questions about safety at Ashmont station and Dorchester park. The Dorchester Reporter in an article today reports on the frustrations of many who attended.

up
Voting closed 0

Here. The Dorchester Park issue was interesting - woman complains police never come when she calls, captain got kind of irate.

Thanks for mentioning it. I obviously went for the citywide stuff, but, yes, the main point of the meeting was the very specific incident in Lower Mills.

up
Voting closed 0

I can threaten society with violence unless they give me a job? And there are people who think it's cool to give in to this blackmail? Or if I'm having trouble getting a job, I can just commit crimes, get arrested, or become or claim I'm an alcoholic and/or druggie, and there are programs in place that would give me special status, putting me ahead in the line, compared to the non-criminal, no-druggie chump looking for work? This is awesome!

up
Voting closed 0

These kids aren't "threatening society with violence" to get a job. They're threatening society with violence to make money, because they think it's cool, because they're subject to rather vicious peer pressure, whatever. A legitimate job is the last thing on their minds.

If an actual job can switch them off that path, what is wrong with that? I'm going to assume most of the people reading this are Christian, and I thought the idea of redemption was supposed to be kind of a big deal with you folks, but what I'm hearing is there are a lot of people who refuse to believe other people can ever change. The more's the pity.

up
Voting closed 0

Do report back on how that works for you. Or, alternately, admit that you're blowing crap.

up
Voting closed 0

We need Road Check Points, random screening for weapons at Bus Terminals, Train Stations, Airfields, Shipyards, and Van Shuttles that come from areas where guns/drugs are known to be smuggled into MA.

Police do Sobriety checkpoints. Why not for weapons?
Laws can be made, no need for ACLU screaming unfair. Too many lives are being lost.

We need to try new methods to get these weapons before they enter our state!

From South-North to New York to Massachusetts!

Excerpt 5/22/14-When Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth Thompson put out a 558-count indictment against six firearms traffickers who conspired to sell illegal guns here, all 155 of the weapons recovered by the NYPD came from one place: Georgia.

If you think you’ve heard this story before, you have. Last September, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. indicted an individual who had illegally trafficked a huge stockpile of guns — via the post office — here from Georgia.

As good as the NYPD is at tracking illegal weapons, it’s impossible to catch everyone. The stark reality is that 90% of all crime-related guns recovered in New York City come from out of state. The illegal firearms that flow north on the so-called Iron Pipeline from states like Georgia with lax gun laws routinely end up in the hands of criminals here — all too often, with deadly results.

Anybody asking why a gun trafficker in Brooklyn buys product 940 miles away in LaGrange, Ga., should look no further than that state’s gun laws — or, more accurately, the lack thereof.

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/death-rides-iron-pipeline-article-1.180...

up
Voting closed 0

or we could not trash the 4th amendment

up
Voting closed 0

Universal background check, at least six months between gun purchases, maximum 10 round magazine capacity, and mandatory 25 years in prison for gun trafficking - sounds good to you?

BUT...

Also 5 years minimum for illegal firearm possession, 15 years minimum for any crime committed while in possession of illegal firearm, and nationwide stop and frisk to do away with all the cutesy "illegal search" bullshit that lets 9 out of 10 thugs easily beat gun charges - sounds good to you? Gun control AND goon control, can't have one without the other.

up
Voting closed 0

MA already has universal background checks, a 10 round limit on everything made after 1994, and Bartley Fox which has lengthy mandatory minimums for illegal possession which are never enforced.

The problem with more laws is that not only do they violate the 2nd amendment and as you've proposed the 4th amendment but CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THEM. The people breaking the law in the first place aren't going to suddenly stop by passing even more laws.

STOP ALLOWING VIOLENT OFFENDERS TO PLEAD OUT OF GUN CHARGES & START ENFORCING BARTLEY FOX.

The people using and trafficking illegal guns are no strangers to police. Stop the catch and release bullshit and the problem will go away.

up
Voting closed 0

The Bartley-Fox law is from the 1970s. It was replaced years ago by a new minimum mandatory of 18 months (where B-F was a year) for carrying on the street. This is enforced. In fact it can't be reduced. Everyone, yes every single person, convicted of carrying a gun without a license does at least that. I know it goes against the mantra that all these cases are plea-bargained away, but it does not happen. If you disagree then point to one, just one case, of a person convicted of carrying outside their house who didn't do at least a year and a half.

Also, the right to plead guilty or go to trial is the defendant's and not the government's. You can't prevent someone from admitting that they did the crime they're accused of. And, I mean, why would you want to?

up
Voting closed 0

If there is a "mandatory 18 months" for carrying, why was this person allowed to walk without even setting bail?

http://www.universalhub.com/crime/20110306-da-violent-criminal-released-...

I understand that he hadn't been tried and convicted yet, but there is clearly a problem in MA with gang bangers and others with illegal firearms getting a slap on the wrist.

up
Voting closed 0

If there is a "mandatory 18 months" for carrying, why was this person allowed to walk without even setting bail?

I understand that he hadn't been tried and convicted yet

Well it looks like you just answered your own question there. Are there any other people you would like to see people sentenced without trials, or just "gang bangers?"

up
Voting closed 0

I'm making a point about the letter of the law versus its application.

up
Voting closed 0

Letter and application are consistent here. You can't be sentenced unless you're convicted, and you can't be convicted without a trial (or pleading guilty). Complain about low bail if you like, but if you're actually concerned with liberty why would you suggest that something is wrong when a person isn't sentenced for a crime that no one's proved he committed?

up
Voting closed 0

What I take away is that stricter state gun laws are not going to solve our problems. I'm a supporter of the right to own guns and also troubled by the availability of guns to those who shouldn't have them. Even stricter (hard to imagine in the City of Boston) gun laws are not going to make the necessary difference if you can drive a car across the state border with a load of guns in the trunk. If we don't make gun control a matter of national law, I don't see how we make the necessary changes.

up
Voting closed 0

is a socioeconomic issue. That's why here in the 'burbs I have 2 gun stores within walking distance of my house (including a class III dealer) and a dozen guns in my safe, and yet there hasn't been a shooting in my town since at least 2004 from what I can tell. If you get people out of poverty and stop glorifying gang life the gun violence issues will sort themselves out.

There are thousands of legally owned guns in the Wellesley, Weston, Newton, Natick, Wayland area but basically no gun crimes. If guns themselves are the issue, than there wouldn't be the disparity in gun crime levels that we see. People need to stop making a socioeconomic issue into a "gun" issue- politicians and anti-gunners do it because "ban guns!" is easier than actually doing something that will fix the issues at hand.

Not exactly a huge Swirly fan, but since she actually did something that was a MEANINGFUL solution to the gang/gun problem, good on her.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't think these are really either-or things. Solving the problems of poverty is surely a worthwhile goal, but even if we started down all of the right roads *right now*, the real improvements in the numbers would still be almost a generation away. Addressing the gun trafficking issue would reduce homicides *today*.

up
Voting closed 0

Although anecdotal, I have been told by several young men that would know, if i were to hand them $100 and give them a half hour, they could purchase and bring home a gun. Scary stuff.

up
Voting closed 0

I could do the same here North of Boston.

up
Voting closed 0

Dear Mr. Evans (and previously Ed Davis), why do you consistently put Target and Hunting restrictions on law abiding Bostonians who wish to get a License to Carry? There are those of us with squeaky clean records, evidence and certification of prior training, and we already have to show our marksmanship at your police range on Moon Island in front of your officers. It is insulting that you'd turn around and completely disregard our second amendment rights by disallowing an unrestricted License to Carry, which most,if not nearly all other MA towns issue. The fact that you don't trust law abiding citizens shows that YOU Mr. Evans only want the criminals and your police force to be armed, and no one else. It's too bad your position can't be voted out and replaced with someone who respects the rights of law abiding residents of Boston.

up
Voting closed 0