A proven method for reducing gun violence

[spotch]

a proven way to reduce gun violence is detailed in the quote box below

The debate on reducing gun violence seems to go nowhere because one side sees gun violence and says "we have to pass more restrictive gun laws and restrict gun ownership" and the other side says "we need to have open access to guns and less restrictive gun laws", and round and round we go year after year fighting over an issue in such a way that one side can only be happy when the other loses ground.

I think this is a terrible idea not just because it potentially poses a threat to gun ownership (if the anti side gains ground for some reason), but because while each group is fighting over these mutually exclusive "solutions" no progress is made.

So I propose we focus on OTHER ways to reduce gun violence that will not only decrease pain and suffering in society but will do so in a way that protects 2nd Amendment rights.

Luckily (IMHO), we already have one proven method at our fingertips.

During the interview, I got the impression that almost everything about violence prevention is ambiguous, unknown, or understudied. Ask about an approach, and you'll find that it either doesn't show any positive result, shows marginal results that may not be reproducable, or hasn't been measured in any serious way at all.

I asked Woodward whether there was anything that we know actually works. Oh, sure, he said -- there is one program that we absolutely know dramatically reduces violence (and other problems) over time. As I described it in that article, the program

"...assigns a registered nurse to first-time at-risk mothers-to-be, to meet and discuss approaches to a healthy pregnancy and child-rearing over the course of two years."

It's called the Nurse Family Partnership, and it's been the subject of long-term tracking studies since the 1970s. In addition to all the short-term gains -- less child abuse and neglect, less need for government aid, increased school readiness, and so on -- the kids are less than half as likely to be arrested by age 20, and commit far less violence as juveniles.

A review of home-intervention methods conducted last year found the Nurse Family Partnership far and away the most effective in achieving measurable positive outcomes. As Woodward explained to me, the program has been studied enough to know what specific criteria are necessary. For example, it has to be an RN; it doesn't work with social workers. And it has to be the mother's first child.

Back in 2007, Woodward told me that the program was not expanding beyond the occasional trial here and there -- and the reason was simple: there's no political interest in funding something that doesn't show results for many years.

Well, today that's changing -- the Nurse Family Partnership is now operating in 40 states, and expects to serve more than 50,000 families by 2016.

That's mostly because of a $1.5 billion funding stream included in the Affordable Care Act -- aka ObamaCare -- for evidence-based home-visit programs.

Woodward was unaware of this development, when I spoke with him today -- but he was glad to hear it. He says there is increasing interest among policy-makers to use "evidence-based" programs, especially when a dollar figure benefit can be attached to it. A RAND Corporation study has estimated a $5.70 payback for every dollar invested in the Nurse Family Partnership; a new Washington State Institute for Public Policy study puts the number lower, but still more than two-to-one.

It would be folly, of course, to say that this or any social policy would prevent any specific act. But the evidence is very clear that, down the line, far fewer people will be harmed by violence if these programs are implemented.

http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/ta...duce-violence-hint-rhymes-with-llamacare.aspx


I'm not here to have a big debate over settled legislation, or have a bunch of tirades over it. I just want to point out that if we step outside of this never ending tug of war it may be possible to find a solution where everybody wins.

 

[Texan Scott]

Texas makes extensive use of the death penalty... people keep insisting that it has no deterrent effect, but idunno, it seems to cut down on repeat offenders...

ETA: i know that probably sounds crass and flippant... but some of us REALLY DO hold the considered opinion that sometimes justice must be RETRIBUTIVE in nature... not personal retribution, which is vengence for emotional gratification, but PURELY IMPERSONAL retribution, administered by the unfeeling hand of the State, which refuses to 'value' an offender more highly than the offender 'valued' their victims.
Of course, helping people BEFORE they do something horrible would be ideal... unfortunately, we can't go 'putting people into the system' just because we think they MIGHT do a bad thing later.
I'm a military veteran who owns guns... I'm pretty sure that already has me on SOMEBODY'S 'help' list....

 

[Byrd666]

Education and familiarity

 

[jfrey]

Education is a good thing but the problem with the anti's is they don't stand to loose anything either way. If they win, we loose everything. If we win, we just get to keep what we already have and they still don't loose anything. It's all pretty one sided either way.

 

[spotch]

Of course, helping people BEFORE they do something horrible would be ideal... unfortunately, we can't go 'putting people into the system' just because we think they MIGHT do a bad thing later.
I'm a military veteran who owns guns... I'm pretty sure that already has me on SOMEBODY'S 'help' list....

Go back and read my first post, it talks about how we can prevent the violence before people grow up to do something horrible.

 

[spotch]

Education is a good thing but the problem with the anti's is they don't stand to loose anything either way. If they win, we loose everything. If we win, we just get to keep what we already have and they still don't loose anything. It's all pretty one sided either way.

Did you guys even read the original post?

 

[dmazur]

Omitting the last line is taking it out of context...

...Which, of course, they won't be if Mitt Romney and Congressional Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act, as they have vowed.

While I understand this makes the post political in nature, and not allowed, omitting it from the quoted section doesn't make it go away.

I tend to agree that loss of fundamental family values may have some correlation with increased violence, lower grades, etc. etc.

However, that does not mean that increased government interference in personal affairs will improve anything.

As I said in other posts, I believe the answer is to make crime not pay. Lenient sentencing and operating prisons as "colleges" where young criminals learn the trade from the more experienced has to stop.

Throwing billions at a social program in the hopes that violence will decrease is, for lack of a better term, rampant optimism. (aka "wishful thinking")

 

[Texan Scott]

I did, actually... but what's being talked about is 'profiling' people INTO a social services system that will treat them as 'potential' offenders. A lot of us coming home/ getting out in 2009 were 'screened'... and veterans who showed signs of 'trauma' were very nearly stripped of their RKBA by EXECUTIVE ORDER which would have equated the 'likelyhood' of military PTSD with 'a history of mental health problems' which would flag them on a NICS check for (at least) the next 7 years WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. The justification for this is that it would be for their own good and the safety of the people around them of course, and that seems noble... but still amounts to infringment of civil rights ex judicio. I am extremely leery of LEGISLATING 'help' for people that haven't asked for it or hurt anyone. I understand this is talking about social services... I also see it as a slippery slope.
I understand you and many others have the very finest of intentions, and are honestly looking for ways to help prevent tragedy and injustice. I applaud the sentiment, and I certainly hope you don't take my comments as expressions of anger or disrespect directed toward you. I simply am a little frightened by the potential for Orwellian abuse inherent in allowing the government to have this kind of pre-emptive power.

ETA: 11 years and a couple elections down the road, today's "identified at-risk 12 yr old" could very easily be a "23 yr old male known to the agency for over a decade as a high-probability violent offender"

 

[spotch]

Omitting the last line is taking it out of context...

I was just omitting a political jab at the end because it didn't contribute to or detract from the facts in the article and there's no point in turning this into a d vs r debate. I also left out the first two paragraphs because they seemed to add no facts. I'm not concerned with this guys editorialization and the distractions his opinion can bring, I'm interested in the results.

However, that does not mean that increased government interference in personal affairs will improve anything.

I think this is a political philosophy that isnt backed up by the studies done on the subject.

As I said in other posts, I believe the answer is to make crime not pay. Lenient sentencing and operating prisons as "colleges" where young criminals learn the trade from the more experienced has to stop.

Id be curious to see if there have been any studies on the results of stricter sentencing. The whole point here for me is finding as many proven (beyond hypotheticals) solutions as possible.

Throwing billions at a social program in the hopes that violence will decrease is, for lack of a better term, rampant optimism. (aka "wishful thinking")

Seems like every dollar spent on this program will save 2-5+ dollars down the line based on the studies mentioned? And frankly, stricter sentencing is doing the exact same thing, throwing WAY MORE money at the problem (incarceration expenses are already astronomical) and hoping that it's enough of a deterrent. In a country where roughly 1 in 100 people is behind bars we're talking about an awful lot of money and government intervention for this plan as well. Worth keeping in mind imho

 

[spotch]

I did, actually... but what's being talked about is 'profiling' people INTO a social services system that will treat them as 'potential' offenders. A lot of us coming home/ getting out in 2009 were 'screened'... and veterans who showed signs of 'trauma' were very nearly stripped of their RKBA by EXECUTIVE ORDER which would have equated the 'likelyhood' of military PTSD with 'a history of mental health problems' which would flag them on a NICS check for (at least) the next 7 years WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. The justification for this is that it would be for their own good and the safety of the people around them of course, and that seems noble... but still amounts to infringment of civil rights ex judicio. I am extremely leery of LEGISLATING 'help' for people that haven't asked

I think I see where you're coming from, but from the sound of it the policy is simply making nurses available to people who want them (but cant currently afford them) for the first two years of the child's life. ?

 

[wickedsprint]

Public executions.

REAL speedy trials.

Labor/work camps...Free roads!

NO bail after first offense.

 

[Texan Scott]

Which is FINE, really... as long as we are VERY careful to SPECIFICALLY ensure that it can NEVER be made involuntary, or that it must be 'volunteered for' to get medicaid... or food stamps... or school lunches...
and also, that the database can NEVER be released to another agency without a hearing of the same sort, and with the same civil protections as say, a civil commitment hearing.... and that no 'executive authority' can order the agency to use the information in ways that would normally require DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
You see, like the sig line says, bad precedents all start as reasonable measures... and there are people who want to tie food stamps to involuntary drug screenings without probable cause or court order (seems reasonable, but even drug addicted food stamp recipients have 4th amendment rights)... and there are people who see nothing wrong with ORDERING the military to share a service member's medical file without a court order or the serviceman's consent - or even knowledge. (any other agency that did this would be prosecuted BY THE SAME FEDS for violating HIPPA)
Very often, the people who come up with these ideas don't plan to abuse the new authority- may not even SEE it as authority, may not have imagined it HAS a possibility of abuse... but two elections down the road, when somebody sees an opening, they take it... unless we guard each and every right jealously, even vehemently, to ensure that cannot and will never happen.
It's this sort of forethought that allows the EPA to regulate ANYTHING with lead in it - except ammunition. This sort of proactive defense is the reason the US Atty General can regulate interstate commerce of firearms - unless they're black powder. (we'll always have access to SOME kind of hunting rifle, right?).
Some people never miss a good opportunity to seize power... and we need to watch them, even when their ideas sound completely innocuous.

 

[dmazur]

Sorry. I understand the intent now. Nothing wrong with "thinking outside the box".

For me, the most important statement is this (yes, taken out of context) -

It would be folly, of course, to say that this or any social policy would prevent any specific act.

Before I'd vote to retain this program, I'd want to see more than theoretical evidence of dollars saved for dollars spent.

 

[Texan Scott]

Also, there appear to be 2 arguments in favor of, and 2 purposes for, this idea which are both laudable but not necessarily the same or always compatable. Spending more on this now to save more on incarceration later might be a good thing... ensuring the best outcome for at-risk kids with minimum intrusion on civil liberties is great, too... but they aren't the SAME goal, and shouldn't be confused as necessarily supportive of the same ends. If this is the right thing to do, would we still do it if it didn't save money? Could we make the program less costly and more effective if we weren't so hung up on legal safeguards? Let's make sure the two goals are compatable, and know what we'll do if we ever find them at cross purposes.

 

[Texan Scott]

OMG... I just realized that I *AM* the annoying man in the tinfoil hat on this thread... LOL! Abuse of power DOES happen... maybe I've turned over enough rocks with snakes under them that I'm pointing at rocks and shouting SNAKE!, i dunno. sorry, man. Think it through carefully, that's all I'm saying, be careful. Unintended consequences are a ... you know.

 

[RustHunter87]

whats that? Raise your kids? why thats just silly

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

A strong nuclear family that worships a peaceful, loving God would go a long way to decreasing violence. Anyone do a study on how many of the mass murdering lunatics came from a traditional God fearing home?

 

[zxcvbob]

The debate on reducing gun violence...

You've lost already by allowing the debate to be framed that way. Why is "gun violence" any different than any other kind of violence? (at least it's an improvement over "gun crime", which could be as trivial as an infraction for improper storage, or in NJ possession of hollow-point pistol ammo anyplace except in your home or at a shooting range)

 

[dmazur]

Well, this isn't "proof" (it's just an op-ed by a professor of criminal justice), but it does discuss this from a different point of view than I've read recently. -

...Immediately prior to the great crime decline that began in the 1990s, the vast majority of criminologists predicted a crime increase. Most experts were convinced that crime would not drop until other social maladies were cured, such as poverty and racism. Most academics scoffed at the idea that tougher penalties (such as three-strikes-and-you're-out laws) and stricter enforcement (such as zero-tolerance policies) would reduce crime.

While no one factor explains the dramatic crime decrease, it turns out that the very things scholars believed caused crime (poverty, racism, inadequate education) seem generally unrelated to crime rates, and the very things most scholars ridiculed (tougher sentencing, more effective policing) seem to be among the things that actually work to reduce crime....

And this author also agrees with your basic premise -

When we find things that actually work, whether these solutions are liberal or conservative, we should put aside our ideological beliefs and embrace those programs.

Here's the whole article -

Strict enforcement and long prison terms

Like a lot of modern problems, this one isn't simple. But I'm pleased to read that there is any evidence that supports strict enforcement and harsh sentences are part of the solution. I was afraid the concept had gone the way of the buggy whip...

 

[toejamm]

spotch,

More restrictive gun laws vs. Less restrictive gun laws?
More government intervention in our lives vs. Leave my children an I alone?
Reduce pain and suffering vs. Second amendment rights?
Never ending tug-of-war vs. Everybody wins?

I am not a great philosopher, but it seems to me that you are playing a never-ending game of a dog chasing it's tail. You don't seem to mention that there is a way to reduce pain, suffering, death, government intervention in child rearing and the tug-of-war while keeping the RKBA intact.

The solution is so simple.......... to me anyway.

Punnish the evildoers!
- Electricution - lethal injection - hanging in the public square. Video it like when Sadam Hussein was hung, and show it on Youtube for the whole world to see. You want the whole world to see you mister James Holmes? How about the whole world seeing you hung on a rope with your orange hair, eyes bugging out of your head and your tongue sticking out? Everyone will remember you then!

And you know what? The whole world will see that, and the next evil psycho might realize that he won't have a "Rock Star" image of himself. He'll have a "Dead SOB" image of himself.

Yes, I am a proud Christian, and I know my opinion on letting the punnishment be delivered in full, to those who deserve it, may not be viewed as Christ-like, but I stray from the pack sometimes.

We have what we need to combat this problem. All we need are judges, prosecutors and willing civilians like ourselves to hold their feet to the fire. Enforce the darn laws we have............Problem Solved!

 

[spotch]

Punnish the evildoers!
- Electricution - lethal injection - hanging in the public square. Video it like when Sadam Hussein was hung, and show it on Youtube for the whole world to see. You want the whole world to see you mister James Holmes? How about the whole world seeing you hung on a rope with your orange hair, eyes bugging out of your head and your tongue sticking out? Everyone will remember you then!

I'm fine with punishing people, I'm just wondering if there are any additional ways that we can approach this. I mean, we already lock up more of our population than any other nation on the planet. And many states (as was mentioned earlier) have the death penalty and some even use it pretty frequently. So if we're already punishing the heck out of our population to an extent that no other nation on the planet is, and we're still getting what many people think is an unacceptable level of gun violence, what else can we do? And what's wrong with working on making things better?

I think another thing that's important to remember here is that while we're talking about "gun violence" we're not just talking about random shooting sprees or thugs robbing other thugs in some high crime area we don't ever visit. We're talking about bad people with guns approaching CCW holders and forcing a confrontation. One that the CCW holder may win, but ideally wouldn't have to fight his or her way out of in the first place. Reducing gun violence as much as possible is in everyone's best interest, even those of us that are armed and have relatives that are armed. And like I said earlier, reducing gun violence also takes ammunition and clout away from groups that are trying to limit gun rights.

I'm not suggesting we coddle criminals or anything like that, I hope no one is getting the wrong idea on that subject. I'm simply trying to make the point that gun violence has *a lot* of negative effects on society (even lawful gun owners) and continues to provide the anti gunners with the strongest weapon they have in their efforts to reduce 2A rights. We've been locking people up at an astonishing pace for 30+ years, and executing people a lot longer than that. I want to know what else we can do.

 

[spotch]

Well, this isn't "proof" (it's just an op-ed by a professor of criminal justice), but it does discuss this from a different point of view than I've read recently. -



And this author also agrees with your basic premise -



Here's the whole article -

Strict enforcement and long prison terms

Like a lot of modern problems, this one isn't simple. But I'm pleased to read that there is any evidence that supports strict enforcement and harsh sentences are part of the solution. I was afraid the concept had gone the way of the buggy whip...

Yeah I think there's definitely a lot to be said about prison sentences and crime rates, but I don't doubt that having ~.8% of your population (and, for the most part, the least desireable part of your population) behind bars at any time is a pretty sure-fire way to reduce violent crime as well

 

[dmazur]

You need to look at the statistics for prison populations -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

An extract -

Another contributing factor to United States' spike in the number of prisoners is the War on Drugs, formally initiated by Richard Nixon with the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and avidly pursued by Ronald Reagan.[25] Incarceration for drug offenses has increased 12-fold from 40,000 in 1981 to nearly 500,000 by 2010, accounting for two-thirds of the rise in the federal inmate population since 1985.[

and another -

For example, a woman who has been recently released from prison is ineligible for welfare in most states. She is not eligible for subsidized housing, and for Section 8 she has to wait two years before she can apply. In addition to finding housing, she also has to find employment, but most likely she can not find a job because she has a criminal record so no one wants to hire her. Essentially, a woman who has been recently released from prison comes into a society that is not prepared structurally or emotionally to welcome her back.

So, it isn't as simple as saying we already put people in prison. We are filling the prisons with drug offenders. My wife used to work in the criminal justice system. There was an unholy number of violent offenders "pushed down" to the County level for work release, because the State didn't have room in their prison system. In many cases the paperwork was falsified to conceal their violent history...

Part of the reason for continued crime is that our society fails to provide an effective path back to "normalcy" for ex-cons. So, if there is going to be vast amounts of funding approved, I'd like to see something done here rather than "nurse outreach" programs full of promise to prevent crime in the first place. And failure to "pass" should have automatic return to prison provisions. You want to be a career criminal? Fine - spend the rest of your natural life behind bars. You want to turn the corner and walk the straight path? There should be a means to accomplish this.

 

[spotch]

So, it isn't as simple as saying we already put people in prison. We are filling the prisons with drug offenders. My wife used to work in the criminal justice system. There was an unholy number of violent offenders "pushed down" to the County level for work release, because the State didn't have room in their prison system. In many cases the paperwork was falsified to conceal their violent history...

Well, see this kinda touches on a problem I was trying to (but maybe failing at) hint to earlier.

After you incarcerate so many people, you run out of room and you run out of money to guard and house and feed them. Even before the recession states were starting to strain under the weight of all of the prisoners they had. After a certain point it becomes unsustainable, much like how after a certain number of people get on welfare, it becomes unsustainable. I think that's why it's essential to approach crime from more than one angle... because you can lock increasingly large percentages of your population up every year for decade after decade, but at some point the productive members of society aren't going to be able to house and guard and feed and medicate these people. (and yeah, we can say "oh no more medications, we'll make them do slave labor" etc, but we already don't have enough jobs for hard working americans looking for them... I'm not sure how taking 2.2 million more jobs and giving them to slave-pay labor will help those of us who would like to earn an honest living doing that work).

But anyway, we're kinda drifting into the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Nobody in this thread is going to argue that locking more and more people up every year won't have some negative impact on violent crime. But crime is a fairly complex issue that's affected by more than just the consequences these people are facing (if your wife worked in the CJ system she's probably fairly well aware of the fact that a lot of criminals aren't especially good at making a rational judgement about their chances of getting caught and weighing the pros and cons of their actions). And I think you're right that we fail miserably at reintegrating people who aren't total wastes of human flesh (and what's worse, the violence problem is WAY easier to tackle than the fact that our system seems entirely incapable of reintegrating people... which is just depressing).


I think we're in 100% agreement that locking people up is essential, that we're not especially good at keeping the worst behind bars and reintegrating the people who conceivably can go back to contributing to society, and that as a result our violent crime rates are still higher than they would be if we could fix these two problems.



Luckily (? ) the second part of this conversation, where we would RATHER spend our money, is a bit of a moot point thanks to John Roberts' swing vote making Obamacare law. As I understand it this early childhood nursing thing is part of the bill that is now law. All we can do at this point is sit back and see if the think tank and academics were right about the cost savings.... somehow lol.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

People have to desire a state of "normalicy" before they can become "normal" and that is a missing component. We have a society that glorifies deviancy and demonizes traditional values. Drug use is also not a victimless crime when you consider the families that are broken up and in many cases left destitute, the amount of damage done by the theft and other crimes resorted to in order to support their habit, and the cost to society from the judicial system, welfare benefits paid to the families, and the lost productivity from somebody high or tripping on their drug of choice. I also do not believe we should be paying to keep these parasites alive and comfortable after one relapse. Perhaps a colony somewhere that would allow them to either feed, clothe, and shelter themselves through their own efforts or perish.