In the days following the shocking, repulsive, execution-style murder of Philadelphia police officer Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski, there has been a renewed focus on the power of the NRA specifically and the gun lobby generally. (For example, see Jill Porter's column today, or Mike Nutter's comments from Monday.)
While I welcome that scrutiny, and think it is common-sense that we keep assault-weapons off the street, I can't help but think that an all-out effort to go after the assault-weapons ban- rather than, for example- handguns- is a really misguided effort.
First, let's think about the murder of Sgt. Liczbinski, who was callously killed, right after telling onlookers to tell his family he loved them. If the alleged killers are insane enough to simply execute a cop, would they be less likely to do so with a shotgun? With a high-caliber handgun? In other words, if we went back in time, and put in a strict assault weapons ban, would he be alive? I doubt it.
Second, how many of the 400 or so people killed on our streets yesterday were slain by people using assault weapons? I would guess it is a distinct minority. How many were killed by handguns?
My point is- when the overwhelming majority of those murdered are done so with handguns, why aren't we focusing there?
The assault weapons ban was passed in 1994 amid widespread panic from a spate of mass shootings, which continued with shootings in places like Columbine high school in 1999. To put this in context, in Columbine, 13 people were killed, 12 of them kids. In Philly last year, 68 high-school age (15-19) kids were killed. In other words, we have a Columbine level massacre of our children every 9 weeks (not to mention the amount of young men slightly older who are killed). How many of them would be saved by renewing the assault weapons ban?
Again, I am all for taking on the gun lobby, and think the assault weapons ban is common-sense. But, if it is handguns that are felling people in Philadelphia- including most police officers that are killed- why does one especially repulsive killing shift that focus? If you tell me that this is the first volley, OK. But, if like in 1994, this is basically the end of possible successes, then why are we focusing here?
I agree that the focus on
I agree that the focus on banning assault rifles is entirely misguided. However, I will go one step further and say that restricting handguns is misguided as well.
It is frustrating that in the wake of the heinous execution of yet another Philadelphia Police Office our elected officials have chosen to decry the NRA and the availability and/or legality of guns rather than whether these criminals should have even been on the streets. Let's get one thing straight neither the NRA nor gun laws killed Officer Liczbinski. A criminal that escaped from a half-way house in Reading did.
First, more gun laws would not have prevented Eric D. Floyd from killing Officer Liczbinski because Eric "the criminal" Floyd bought the gun from a crackhead in Reading - not from a gun dealer who would be the only one who would obey the law. Ditto for John "the coward" Lewis who assassinated Officer Chuck Cassidy in November - he stole the gun from his mother who was a prison guard.
Also, the media reports that Mr. Floyd "escaped" from a half-way house in Reading. Escaped may be giving him too much credit. From those that I have known that have spent time in half-way homes, I am pretty much sure you can just walk out. I ask, what was he doing in a minimum security half-way house in the first place? I would be curious to know what his record looks like. Or, maybe he was one of those "non-violent" offenders that we want to release to alleviate prison overcrowding.
I do know one thing. In the wake of yet another slain Police Officer and a murder rate in this City that is still alarmingly high, unless we get our focus corrected nothing will change.
A few things
1) A "crackhead in Reading"? Really?
2) At some point in the chain of events that put the AK-47 into Floyd's hands, there was (in all likelihood) a legal sale involved. What begin as legal sales cannot be adequately controlled/contained. In this case, it resulted in an officer's death.
3) There is no legitimate non-police or military use for an assault weapon -- in hunting, self-defense, etc. Its only use is to kill a person in a firefight.
4) Assault weapons, like armor-piercing bullets or other military-style weapons, pose a special risk to law-enforcement personnel, even those wearing body armor, because of their advanced killing power (high caliber + ability to target + rapid firing rate). Since regular police rarely carry more than a handgun (occasionally a shotgun), a police officer facing a high-powered weapon is at a powerful disadvantage.
5) All of these facts make an assault weapons ban a powerful issue in the fight to regulate gun sales and ownership, because the usual objections that regulations pose an undue burden on ordinary gun owners (hunters, etc.) melt away. All that you have left are constitutional considerations, coupled with (maybe) extended hypotheticals about ground invasions of the U.S. or overthrowing a tyrannical government or slippery slopes. When you're taking on assault weapons, all you have left are the extremists.
Assault rifles are easy. Let's talk Justice System reform.
In many ways our local courts, probation system and jails are broken. In many ways its those stories, not the use of an already illegally resold assault rifle, that should the take-away story from Sgt. Liczbinski's tragic death.
First, our city jails are overflowing and according to David Rudovsky potentially unconstitutionally overcrowded.
To be perfectly clear a big chunk of this overcrowding are people who have not been convicted of anything yet, will likely only be convicted of minor non-violent crimes at worst (and might be better handled by alternate processes), and are there awaiting trial for no other reason than they don't have the financial means to make bail.
Another factor in local jail overcrowding is a small number of convicted who can and should be moved to state prison where they can be housed more safely and humanely (and at state cost). In the big picture, the number of people falling into this "convicted and should be serving state time anyway" category is small but there is no good reason for progressives to drop the ball and cede the issue over to "tough on crime" conservatives while also pushing for best practices in terms alternative sentencing for non-violent offenders.
To be perfectly clear, the overcrowding issue has no direct relation to Howard Cain, Officer Liczbinski's alleged shooter, except it is symptomatic of a justice system that across the board needs to be reorganized and reformed with a look at best practices. It is symptomatic of a system which all to often is overwhelmed and underfunded, where the system is constantly in triage mode, constantly trying to play catch up and therefore sometimes setting wrong priorities - as it may have in the case of Howard Cain's parole.
To really do this post justice, I should also talk about problems the court system, the shortage of manpower for parole officers, a whole host of other topics. The problem is that I'm not an expert in these fields and I'm hoping others will fill in.
The point is if "tough on crime" conservatives set the whole criminal justice agenda and progressives don't step to the plate, instead hanging our whole case on gun control, we set ourselves up for failure politically and in terms of safety on our actual streets.
Wally's post in many ways underscore's my point. If progressives don't tackle these issues Republicans, even "maverick" ones like Wally, will.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Just one clarification
the overcrowding is unconstitutional also according to the Judge Surrick of the Eastern District.
Also
I don't really know enough to judge this, but it seems to me that 'progressives' haven't dropped the ball on these issues--I know a ton of people that are and have been doing amazing work for a while in this area--but instead that elected officials largely have not been able or willing to actually push to change the system (because one has to walk such a tightrope to avoid exposing oneself to electoral challenges as weak on crime or whatever).
One conclusion at a semi-related recent conference I attended was that economics are going to force a shift in both policy and discourse regarding incarceration. There was some debate over this, but in the end I think there was pretty clear consensus that the current system is insupportably expensive. So even the relative drop in crime rates that comes from keeping more people in jail longer is offset by all the collateral costs.
You were one I hoped would help fill in
Seth Williams was another. There are others as well.
Parole understaffing, drug courts and the economic benefits of alternative sentencing processes for non-violent offenders, the "state of the art" of re-entry programs, learning how to target both enforcement and intervention preventively at those most likely to become violent criminals - all that stuff is not "soft on crime". It's "smart on crime" and we progressives should be able to talk as easily and in as much depth on those issues as we do on gun control. I'm not saying there isn't work being done on this stuff but I am saying its an area where many progressives (myself included) do ourselves a disservice by not having a stronger discourse, better talking points, better policy initiatives already in our tool box.
I'd like to change that.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Yeah
and I don't want to push back too much, but I think all the specific things that you are talking about are developed policy proposals, etc, it is just that they have not been considered politically viable and so have not had a very high public profile. I think that has started to shift at least locally if not nationally--the discussions over this during the mayoral election I thought were pretty in-depth, though we'll see what actually gets changed.
I totally agree that it is a necessary focus, and I agree that it can very well be framed in a way that preempts a lot of the shitty 'weak on crime' critiques.
Wording is important
Its important to get the message across clearly. Basically the point to make is the cost of incarceration for those non-violent offenders who are more effectively dealt with in other ways is getting in our way of stopping the violent offenders who pass through the system and come out on the other end more, not less, likely to commit violent crimes again. The system is clogged and underperforming or downright failing - at the front and the back end - in terms of going after the people who really pose the biggest threat to the safety of our streets. And that failure costs taxpayers an arm and a leg.
If we frame the argument that way, we arm ourselves to address the ways in which the criminal justice system is in fact failing to protect the public. The best way to give some of our elected officials an impetus to develop some cojones to talk about these issues is to have the issues at our fingertips. "Liberals", "progressives", whatever do well to have some policy depths on crime and whats wrong with our criminal justice system and we don't all have the insight or passion you do for the subject, jennifer.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
These bans are worthless
I've heard a nasty rumor that pot, smack, crack, Tina/ice/meth, G, K, and E are all banned.
And yet, they are everywhere.
Somehow, we have tons of idiots who live in Philadelphia who believe that when something is banned, the atoms within the molecular structure of whatever it is that was recently banned lose their strong nuclear force and they go "poof" into a cloud of sub-atomic particles.
IOW, get real. There's simply not enough jail space in Philadelphia and in PA. The City needs a jail bed capacity of about 14,000 units where it presently is at 8,000 and it has overextended that by 1,000.
Want lower crime? Easy:
- Expand jail capacity
- Adjust sentencing so crimes are punished on fairness, not by political expediency. For example, possession is a light offense. I would argue pot possession and distribution needs to be more lax. Illegal gun possession should be prosecuted viciously... we need to hold those people in prison longer.
- Enforce QOL policing
- HBG should pass a zero tolerance for violence in schools Act, which enables the state to individually release pension obligations on particular administrators who are found to be tolerant of violence occurring on campus by not turning offenders over to police or not stopping an incident in progress, in addition to termination of employment.
Damn - my whole understanding of reality, shattered
Do you mean to say that when something is banned, its molecular structure isn't altered, and it doesn't just go "poof?" Do you have any hard evidence that doesn't happen?