Today’s startling Herald front page:
The story paints a pretty grim picture.
The 54 teenagers slain in Boston since the start of 2004 account for nearly half of the 123 teens murdered over the past 10 years.
Prior to Dec. 22, just three 14-year-olds were murdered in Boston in the past 10 years. Then inside of two weeks, two more 14-year-olds were gunned down. And before mid-January, just one 13-year-old was slain in the past 10 years. Then seven bullets killed Gerena near the Bromley-Heath Housing Development.
“Kids are walking more in twos,” Folgert said. “There’s an edge right now. They literally won’t go across the street to a McDonald’s alone. It’s ridiculous. They just won’t walk anywhere alone. That wasn’t true years ago.”
Admittedly, the decision to run the “Dirty Harry” and the “it’s all about the lingerie” teasers at the top of the page may have detracted somewhat from the impact of the main graphic. Nonetheless, kudos to the Herald for making a big deal out of a situation in Boston that desperately needs attention. Commissioner Davis says that the “challenge” “energizes” him. Let’s hope that it energizes him to put some concrete strategies into effect pronto.
weissjd says
but this is a really powerful cover. It’s easy to become enured to the reports of violence, but looking into those children’s faces makes it hard to ignore. I’m not generally a fan of the Herald, but we’re lucky to live in a two newspaper town.
raj says
… a few years ago along the MA turnpike extention there was a rather substantial billboard with pictures of what I had, and probably others would have, presumed to have been children who were victims of gun killings. What effect did it have? On anything in particular? As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing.
<
p>
The Channel 2’s news hour oftentimes ends with homages to Americans who had died in the Iraq war (odd that no mention is made of Iraqis who died, but whatever…). What effect does that have? On anything in particular. As far as I can tell, very little–except, perhaps, to incite Americans to further violence against Iraqis.
<
p>
Let’s understand something. This is a nice stunt by the Herald. In the long run, what effect will it have? Absolutely nothing. Except possibly to make some people believe that, merely by printing the pictures of the kids who have died or viewing those picture, that they will have gotten the false impression that they done accomplished something meaningful, which, obviously, they hadn’t.
jk says
Your comparisons are not really right.
<
p>
1. The billboard on the Pike was an anti-second amendment political add in a state that has some of the toughest gun laws already. What effect were the people who put up that add looking for? They couldn’t have really expected that people who were likely already polarized on the subject to change their opinions? However, how many gun owners with kids saw that add and the next time they went to Wal-Mart picked up a couple of trigger locks for their guns?
<
p>
2. Ending the broadcast with a tribute to the people that have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country is just that a tribute to those great men and women. Dead Iraqis are shown or talked about during the news all the time. Americans are not incited to “further violence against Iraqis” by this and that is not the purpose of this, in fact it is the exact opposite. Showing the soldiers who died in the war and showing the people that died as a result of “collateral damage” are done to weaken Americans resolve to fight the war and have them question the validity of the war. You don’t think this has worked? Support for the war in Iraq is at an all time low and many people from all sides of the political spectrum want the war to end and the US troops out of Iraq.
<
p>
This was not a “stunt” by the Herald, this was good reporting. It is easy to dismiss the news of another teen dead in an inner city that most of us won’t visit. But taking a step back and showing the situation in larger context is a good piece of reporting. Showing the pictures of the kids that have been murdered brings a human side to the reports that some of us hear on the radio while getting ready for work. This is actually good journalism in a time when most of the news we get is wanting for more actual journalism. As far as what this will accomplish, who knows? But the intent of journalism is to inform us, it is now our duty to act.
weissjd says
Just to add to your 2nd point, wasn’t there an election a couple of months ago? The Republicans lost both houses of Congress and polling indicates that Iraq was the biggest issue for voters. So it’s hard to argue that coverage that humanizes those who died in Iraq hasn’t made a difference.
stomv says
In addition to the trigger lock argument above, I think that the billboard helps maintain status quo. What status quo? The status quo of tight gun laws, and social expectation of tight gun laws.
<
p>
Personally, I don’t think its anti-second amendment. Just as free speech doesn’t allow yelling fire in a theater, bearing arms doesn’t allow for anti aircraft weaponry. Exactly where the actual line is drawn is a tough societal question.
<
p>
As a side note, gun violence dropped dramatically across the country from 1992-2000, and since then has approximately stabilized. (usdoj). Handgun violence may have ticked up a bit, but its hard to know if that’s a trend or a blip.
jk says
tight gun laws vs. anti-second amendment is just nomenclature depending on your political point of view. Just like pro-choice vs. pro-abortion.
<
p>
As far as where the line is, we likely never settle that argument. Some people believe that anti aircraft weaponry is covered by the 2nd amendment because the point of the amendment is to allow for the over throw of the government if it becomes to tyrannical. People on the polar opposite side say that no one should own guns and that the term “militia” in the amendment means the amendment only applies to the military.
<
p>
The problem with gun violence statistics that you are pointing to is that they do not differentiate from legal guns and illegal guns. I have yet to find anywhere that you can get good statistics on this. The statistics from the NRA are skewed in their favor and the statistics from the anti-second amendment side are skewed in their favor. I believe that the system in place now to obtain a legal gun is a sufficient deterrent that most of the violence is being committed with illegal guns.
<
p>
I used to have my FID card before they changed everything and now I am going through the process of getting it again through the new system. I have to go to class and learn safety protocols and show proficiency with a hand gun. After that I have to apply for the license with my local police chief. Up to this point I have no problem with the new system. My problem is that every police chief evaluates the applications differently. Some have no problem giving out the “Class A” license, others don’t want to give out any. (the classes are determined by type of gun, bullet capacity and the ability to carry a concealed weapon. In general Class C – riffles, Class B – riffles and hand guns that can a small amount of bullets, Class A – riffles and hand guns that can hold a large amount of bullets AND the ability to carry concealed…why is that not a separate permit like it used to be) Instead of police chiefs there should be a central agency for the state to evaluate applications so things could be more uniform. And the ability to carry concealed should be removed from the Class A. Once I get through this system and I can finally go and buy a gun, I have to wait several days to actually take it home.
<
p>
If I didn’t want to go through this process, I could go to several places in the city and buy an illegal gun. I may pay a little more but I will go through less hassle and have the gun the same day.
<
p>
IMHO, it is more logical that based on the system that is in place that illegal guns are responsible for the raise in violence in the area. In which case higher penalties for illegal guns are needed rather then more tighter gun laws.
stomv says
My question remains: why are New England’s gun homicide rates so much lower than the rest of the country? Is it because we (tend to) have tougher gun laws? Or one/many of a hundred other possible reasons?
<
p>
My other question is: what is the supply chain for illegal guns? At some point, every gun gets transformed from legal to illegal. Some from international smuggling, some stolen from legal gun owners, some purchased from legal gun owners, etc.
<
p>
Where do these illegal guns come from? What is the current number of illegal guns? What’s the average “lifetime” of an illegal gun — the time until the police seize it or it ceases to be functioning and repairable?
<
p>
Reducing the number of illegal guns would certainly help to significantly curtail gun violence. We seem to be very interested in buying them back, but what more could be done to prevent the transformation from legal weapon to illegal weapon in the first place? The Brady Bunch tend to focus on reducing the number of legal weapons, which I think certainly does help reduce the number of illegal weapons. But, there must be other, more effective methods. Without knowing just how guns are becoming illegal, its hard to know where to “clamp down” in their supply chain.
<
p>
Any ideas on that one?
david says
that had some currency a while ago, but seems to have disappeared recently, was this: we’ve lost the battle with respect to illegal guns — there are too many, they last too long, and experience has shown that they can’t be effectively controlled, no matter how tight the laws. Instead, we should focus on controlling ammunition. Guns can’t hurt people without ammo, and ammo must be constantly replenished, so control the ammo market, and you control the gun problem.
<
p>
I know very little about the gun/ammo world, so I have no idea whether this was a good idea that never caught on, or was a bad idea that was recognized as such. Anyone?
jk says
If you can’t control one, what makes you think we can control the other?
<
p>
For many reasons ammo is probably easier to get then the gun. It can be made by vertually anyone. It generally doesn’t carry serial numbers to track where it came from so police can’t take that back to the source. They a smaller and easier to hide. etc.
bostonshepherd says
You cannot purchase ammunition in MA without an FID. You cannot purchase ammunition via the mail in MA.
<
p>
MA could outlaw all ammo, and it would have zero effect on gun violence in MA.
<
p>
Exactly the same parallel as for handguns.
<
p>
Idea: try stiffer laws for carrying a gun illegally, say 10 years. 20 for commission of a felony crime with an illegal gun.
geo999 says
(emphasis mine)
<
p>
Got data?
jk says
All he was saying is that every illegal gun was at one point a legal gun. Guns are not made on the street. They are made in factories and at some point they get into the hands of criminals.
<
p>
And he is correct that more needs to be known about that transition if there is going to be any real effort to stop this problem.
ryepower12 says
Spent as much time investigating murderers in Dorchester as they do waging war against the Mooninites, maybe the streets of Boston would be safe for teens again.
<
p>
I won’t hold my breath.
stomv says
that New England has the lowest murder rate in the country, gun homicide rate in the country, and teen homicide rate in the country. Check out the charts, again from usdoj:
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
I’m not arguing that the recent trend in Boston isn’t a problem — its a major problem. However, New England is doing something right when it comes to homicide.
bostonshepherd says
Our lower homicide rate is probably cultural. Anti-gun regs have little to do with it.
<
p>
A better measure is % of handgun homicides as a % of total homicides.
<
p>
My guess is that there will be little difference in this number among regions.
<
p>
Are the actual raw data avilable?
soomprimal says
I feel the teen murder escalation is somewhat analogous to the Iraq situation. Are more police the answer, aka, a military solution, or is this a deeper community issue that isn’t being addressed?
<
p>
I don’t think more band-aids can patch this blood-gushing amputated limb of Boston. Boston needs a socio-economic-cultural solution to this, not a military one.