Detroit Police Chief Fires Up The Gun Debate

**TKshreve** · January-03-14, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Jason

A lot of murders are people getting angry at something [[usually "disrespect"

) and making bad decisions while angry. Without guns in the picture most of those turn into fist fights.

You're insinuating that guns will magically disappear. Criminals will always find a way to arm themselves, I don't care what kind of legislation is passed. Furthermore, disarming society is simply not going to happen. That's like banning candy.

Even more murders are gang related, and everyone is already armed.

Agreed.

And yeah, the burglars might like to pick easy targets, but if the situation changes to where every burglary turns into a gunfight, then the criminals are going to make sure they'll win the gunfight, and they have a severe advantage.

I would speculate an increasing amount of violent crimes already result in homicide, aside from the gang violence. The concept being suggested by Craig is a reactionary response to the current state of affairs. Criminals now more than ever seem devoid of respect for life. I think they realize the best way to avoid being caught and imprisoned.

And the statistics have been run on guns, and gun owners are far far more likely to either accidentally or intentionally kill themselves than they are to use the gun to defend themselves.

No offense, but this argument is a strawman. If anything, we could utilize the arming/mobilization of citizens as an opportunity to increase gun safety and training. Anybody who kills themselves with their own weapon is simply falling victim to Darwinism.

I appreciate your points, but we have bigger fish to fry here. The 35+ year status quo in Detroit re: crime s NOT working. Regardless of who has overseen the DPD, violent crimes remain a huge deterrent to the city when it comes to residency, population and business investment - let alone our national reputation.

I'm not sure if this is the answer to our problems, but it's certainly time to try something different.

**EastsideAl** · January-03-14, 04:09 PM

What the hell city do you live in? We've already tried being over-armed in Detroit, for several decades now. And the result has been disastrous, with a nearly endless number of people, including children, injured and killed in petty arguments, domestic disputes, dumb gang "beefs", perceived incidents of disrespect, or just plain accidents.

**softailrider** · January-03-14, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

They are forbidden from owning military ammo, they can buy their own ammo if they want.

Good point about military training, though. Maybe reforming DPS into a military academy style operation would instill some civic responsibility into the populace?

So they can buy hollow point or soft point ammo which isn't used by the military and not allowed by the Geneva Convention, but they cannot buy solid core ammo?

**iheartthed** · January-03-14, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

Who besides the Chief doesn't think that most Detroiters are already armed?

Haha, exactly! I'm gonna just hope he was quoted out of context or something. I think responsible gun ownership is already very prevalent among the non-criminal Detroit population. That hasn't changed Detroit from perpetually having one of the highest crime rates of any big city in America.

**Gannon** · January-03-14, 04:39 PM

OK, here's an idea.

Open the police-training gun ranges to citizens with the proper credentials and standing, so they can get familiar with their weapons in the same place they can get familiar with the officers who protect us daily on the front lines. Win-win-win.

Plus, we need for someone to create a basic munitions company making inexpensive range bullets and shells...and reloading. This will create jobs and solve one of the weirdest shortages EVER...caused by the Federal Government's overbuying.

If the police don't have enough training facilities, make more.

Jobs, jobs, jobs. Winning all around.

The undercover fellows can train somewhere hidden, they don't need their cover blown.

**brizee** · January-03-14, 04:57 PM

This guy needs to just stay away the media for a minute.

Regardless of his job performance any underlings just need to slap any and all mics away from his face.

He SEEMS to be doing decent job.

Then again so did Warren Evans and too much media/camera time is what did him in too.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · January-03-14, 05:17 PM

I am absolutely in favor of gun ownership, and owners knowing how to use their guns. Especially considering our horrible emergency response time, crime victims can rely on the police to try determine why they were victimized, not to intervene. That having been said, I am not sure that one-liners said to the press are the way to go about achieving increased responsible ownership. Setting up gun ownership, safety & use classes at precincts is a better way.

But I like the chief. I would rather have a chief of police achieve a lower crime rate and be disliked than a "consensus-builder" politician-type police chief who is beloved by a terrorized citizenry.

**rb336** · January-03-14, 05:18 PM

Switzerland is a tiny country with almost 0 poverty, universal healthcare, an average income more than 50% higher than the US, 3% unemployment...the lack of violent crime has WAY more to do with those facts than gun ownership

**401don** · January-03-14, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

Switzerland is a tiny country with almost 0 poverty, universal healthcare, an average income more than 50% higher than the US, 3% unemployment...the lack of violent crime has WAY more to do with those facts than gun ownership

This is why it drives me nuts when the argument is for "responsible gun ownership". How does gov't decide who is responsible? Is the applicant stupid, short-tempered, lazy, uneducated, mentally unstable, a loner, drug addict, alcoholic or all of the above?

**swan** · January-03-14, 05:45 PM

Hey, I got an idea. How about the police department start a unit that puts policemen trained in the use of firearms out on the street to act as victims. Maybe we cam call it S.T.R.E.S.S. or something like that.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · January-03-14, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by 401don

How does gov't decide who is responsible?

In a few ways.
First, you create a list of things deemed "irresponsible" that preclude you from getting licensed or revoke your license. This list would inlcude but not be limited to: any violent crime convictions at any time, any felony convictions in the last 10 years, delinquent on taxes or child/spousal support, orders of protection against you, and documented history of making violent threats, active warrants for your arrest, history of substance abuse [[including a hair follicle drug test), or mental illness. Most gun crime is not committed by a first time offender.

Second, you create a list of requirements for firearms owner: completion of a gun safety class that teaches proper maintenance and storage of your firearm, and also provides an overview of legal responibilites in terms of hunting, self/property protection, and carrying/transporting your firearm; and a minimum number of hours of firing range practice with the model of firearm you seek to be licensed to have.

Certainly, these things are not perfect. There will still be gun crime and accidents. But a certain number of parents abuse their children. The answer isn't an abolition of parenthood. It's vigorous prosecution of the minority of people who break the law. Some drivers are not responsible with their cars. So we need to punish them, not all drivers.

Most gun crimes are not committed by people who are otherwise obeying gun laws. I have never heard of a gang member or carjacker registering his gun and submitting themselves to a background check. I don't envision someone holding a gun to a kid's head thinking to themselves, "Well, I am willing to murder this individual, but I am in violation of the gun-free zone outside this school. I should reconsider my actions."

**Johnnny5** · January-03-14, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by TKshreve

Seems to me this new Chief of ours likes rocking the boat.

Is this exactly the type of paradigm shift our city needs to turn the proverbial corner?

Or has he opened up Pandora's Box?

One thing is for sure, this is quite a surprise coming from the biggest little liberal city in the mid west.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

I'm in full support of responsible Americans being able to exercise their rights, but isn't this the same chief that isn't even licensed to carry a firearm while on duty?

**davewindsor** · January-03-14, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Switzerland's gun owners are all trained military, and are forbidden from keeping ammo. Kind of a poor comparison to the U.S.

Just to clarify. Military service is mandatory for all male Swiss citizens turning the age of 19 and voluntary for women. Perhaps, the regimented lifestyle learned from mandatory military service would teach the younger citizens of Detroit to have respect for the laws and authority and a sense of community service, which is so lacking in this city. There are also very lengthy mandatory minimum jail term sentences for using a gun in a crime in Switzerland.

I never heard about the ammo prohibition. Who told you that?

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · January-03-14, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by davewindsor

Just to clarify. Military service is mandatory for all male Swiss citizens turning the age of 19 and voluntary for women. Perhaps, mandatory military service would teach citizens of Detroit to have respect for the laws and authority, which is so lacking in this city. There are also very lengthy mandatory minimum jail term sentences for using a gun in a crime in Switzerland.

I never heard about the ammo prohibition. Who told you that?

I probably wouldn't support mandatory military service, but there are some merits. I definitely think that our inner city youth would benefit from a strong JROTC program in every high school. Although I favor a strong mandatory minimum for using a gun in a crime, I don't think it acts as much of a deterrent, because I don't think most violent criminals have a rational thought process leading up to the crime. I think you should heavily punish violent criminals, but I doubt the efficacy of deterrents. Criminals generally don't care, and already ignore the consequences for their actions.

**professorscott** · January-03-14, 07:08 PM

I found the Chief's comments interesting. Obviously, as others have pointed out, there are significant differences between various places [[Maine vs. Detroit), but on the other hand, Detroit has some unique circumstances that affect the crime rate.

Criminals generally go where they perceive low-risk opportunity. There are, of course, exceptions, but in general this is axiomatic. As Clausewitz said, "The conqueror is always a lover of peace; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed".

If you have ever spent time at taverns frequented by off-duty police officers [[as your kindly old Professor, in a past life, has done) you become aware that, in the otherwise highest-crime neighborhoods, these taverns are singularly free of evildoers.

Statistically, I agree that there is no evidence whatever that in a nation which broadly permits guns, an increase in gun ownership with all else being equal either increases or decreases crime. But I suspect if you lived in a neighborhood where a great many of the residents were armed, and if those residents were somehow able to make it broadly known that this was so, the crime rate in such a neighborhood would be relatively low.

There are certainly problems that crop up among armed people, even well meaning ones, and these are frequently related to such issues as lack of training, chemical intoxication, and the like. And there is the occasional tragedy [[sleepy dad mistakes sneaking-in teen for burglar, etc.). But I think that it is an interesting premise, very difficult to study, that to encourage the citizenry to arm itself in a place where the police can never exist in sufficient numbers to act as a deterrence, might itself serve as a deterring factor.

**Hermod** · January-03-14, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Switzerland's gun owners are all trained military, and are forbidden from keeping ammo. Kind of a poor comparison to the U.S.

No, they keep ammo. Each citizen liable for military callup has his basic load in sealed tins. Each time he is mustered, he has to show his sealed tins. Takes him about three minutes to load up if he has to.

**Novine** · January-03-14, 08:09 PM

"Most gun crimes are not committed by people who are otherwise obeying gun laws. I have never heard of a gang member or carjacker registering his gun and submitting themselves to a background check."

The problem is that most gun deaths aren't from gun crimes, they're from accidents and suicides. As someone else pointed out, the percentage of people who are the victims of random crime is minimal compared to those who are killed by people they know or die from gun accidents or suicides.

"But I suspect if you lived in a neighborhood where a great many of the residents were armed, and if those residents were somehow able to make it broadly known that this was so, the crime rate in such a neighborhood would be relatively low.'

Even if this was true, which there's no stats to back up this idea, this neighborhood would also have higher incidents of gun accidents and suicides, both of which are statistically tied to higher rates of gun ownership. How many dead kids from gun accidents are acceptable to create an atmosphere of fear for criminals?

**compn** · January-03-14, 08:24 PM

did chief james craig take the policemans test so he could carry a firearm?
he wants detroiters to do what he wont?

**aj3647** · January-03-14, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

[/I][/COLOR]How many people need to be armed for this affect to happen? There is literally no empirical evidence that more guns = less crime.

It's not just how many are carrying, but WHO is carrying. The statistics I've seen about concealed carry show that those with permits tend to be older, white males, middle to upper-class, who live primarily in rural or suburban areas. So most of the people who are carrying guns are the people who are least likely to be crime victims.

Meanwhile, the people who are at highest risk for crime are the ones who are least likely to even own a gun. Gun ownership rates among blacks is 40% less than among whites. And gun ownership rates among urban dwellers are significantly lower compared to rural and suburban.

If the NRA really thinks guns are the best way to reduce crime rates, they should be handing out free guns and free gun training to eligible working-class black people living in big cities. Bet that idea would go over really well with your average white NRA member.

**Johnnny5** · January-03-14, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

"Most gun crimes are not committed by people who are otherwise obeying gun laws. I have never heard of a gang member or carjacker registering his gun and submitting themselves to a background check."

The problem is that most gun deaths aren't from gun crimes, they're from accidents and suicides. As someone else pointed out, the percentage of people who are the victims of random crime is minimal compared to those who are killed by people they know or die from gun accidents or suicides.

"But I suspect if you lived in a neighborhood where a great many of the residents were armed, and if those residents were somehow able to make it broadly known that this was so, the crime rate in such a neighborhood would be relatively low.'

Even if this was true, which there's no stats to back up this idea, this neighborhood would also have higher incidents of gun accidents and suicides, both of which are statistically tied to higher rates of gun ownership. How many dead kids from gun accidents are acceptable to create an atmosphere of fear for criminals?

The suicide rate in the U.S is significantly lower than many other developed countries where civilian gun ownership is almost non existent. In other words, reducing access to firearms isn't a surefire way to reduce the number of suicides, just the way they are committed. Also, the number of firearm related accidental deaths in the U.S is actually very small. The past few years it has averaged about 600 per year. Just for comparison's sake about 25,000 Americans die every year due to accidental falls, about 40,000 die every year from accidental poisonings and about 2500 choke to death.

**Dan Wesson** · January-03-14, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by aj3647

If the NRA really thinks guns are the best way to reduce crime rates, they should be handing out free guns and free gun training to eligible working-class black people living in big cities. Bet that idea would go over really well with your average white NRA member.

Free!?

Like them Phones!? I bet that goes over well with all working class, taxpaying citizens no matter what color. That's funny and oh so entitlement minded.

I'm sorry....

**aj3647** · January-03-14, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Dan Wesson

Free!?

Like them Phones!? I bet that goes over well with all working class, taxpaying citizens no matter what color. That's funny and oh so entitlement minded.

I'm sorry....

Who are you to tell any private organization or individual how they should spend their money? I didn't say the government should hand out free guns, now did I? Soooo, where exactly is the entitlement and why would the taxpayer care?

Hey did you know that there are soup kitchens that actually hand out FREE food to hungry people? And non-profit charity-run medical clinics that provide FREE health care to the indigent? The Horror! I know taxpaying citizens everywhere hate the idea of private charity.

FYI, there is a charitable pro-gun group that IS handing out free guns to poor people in high-crime areas:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-guns/2404307/

Clearly this private, voluntary effort is nothing but taxpayer-funded socialism furthering the entitlement mentality. Thanks for the input!

**Dan Wesson** · January-03-14, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by aj3647

If the NRA really thinks guns are the best way to reduce crime rates, they should be handing out free guns and free gun training to eligible working-class black people living in big cities.

Originally Posted by aj3647

Who are you to tell any private organization or individual how they should spend their money?

Nobody really...