PDA

View Full Version : "Ceasefire" Program - thoughts?


Stonewalker
04-05-2011, 4:21 PM
I put this here because programs aimed at reducing gun violence are usually just aimed at reducing guns and that is a RKBA issue. Feel free to move it mods if you think it should be somewhere else.

Is anybody familiar with Ceasefire? It's a program aimed at reducing gang problems confined in a city. Opinions about welfare programs aside, what do you think of this program? It doesn't actually seems to be a bad program. That is, none of the usual suspects have their names on it, CSGV, VPC or the Bradys.

This might actually be a program that is trying to address the gang and violence problems in our country without curtailing the 2nd amendment. I haven't done much research yet but I will be reading about this more. We can all get behind ideas like "violence is bad" and "gangs are bad", but the anti-gunners always try to peg us as violent and callous individuals because we don't support their "anti-violence" programs which are really just "anti-gun" programs. I think it would be beneficial for us to support something like this. When I say "us" I mean the pro-rights movement in general, not us here at Calguns or even the NRA. I mean, I would certainly support an effective program that deals with gang violence without hurting the constitution.

Again, I don't know much about Ceasefire yet, this is just an idea I had when I was reading through SacPD's website.

Read about the Sacramento Ceasefire in this PDF -
http://www.sacpd.org/pdf/partnerships/sscp.pdf

PsychGuy274
04-05-2011, 4:26 PM
They are just a garden variety anti-2A group under the guise of 'solving the problem of violence.'

They don't care about violence, they care about guns.

Stonewalker
04-05-2011, 4:29 PM
They are just a garden variety anti-2A group under the guise of 'solving the problem of violence.'

They don't care about violence, they care about guns.

Have you read about them? Do you have any sources to share about them specifically being involved in anti-gun activities?

I know they keep on using the term "gun violence" which in is disingenuous in itself, but I didn't see anything in their directives or goals that involved making guns harder to get. Again, I haven't looked deep yet. When I get home from work I plan on doing a little more research - if my damn internet is turned back on yet :mad:

stix213
04-05-2011, 4:30 PM
The description in the PDF sounds like it targets the criminals instead of what they may or may not be holding. It sounds good to me, but the only thing I have ever heard about this is their propaganda you linked. Would be interesting to read more on the program from people not trying to push it.

dantodd
04-05-2011, 4:31 PM
I don't know anything about them. But I am always suspicious of anyone interested in "gun violence" rather than "violence."

Stonewalker
04-05-2011, 4:35 PM
I don't know anything about them. But I am always suspicious of anyone interested in "gun violence" rather than "violence."

Agree completely.

The description in the PDF sounds like it targets the criminals instead of what they may or may not be holding. It sounds good to me, but the only thing I have ever heard about this is their propaganda you linked. Would be interesting to read more on the program from people not trying to push it.

Here is a lengthy Mother Jones article about the original Ceasefire program called the "Boston Miracle". I'll read it later, still at work now.

BKinzey
04-05-2011, 6:02 PM
Here's a link to a Mother Jones article on the "Boston Miracle"

http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/01/straight-outta-boston

cmichini
04-05-2011, 8:50 PM
I'm all for the 'ceasefire' program to stop violence.

As soon as you have stopped the violent threat, you should cease fire.

Crom
04-05-2011, 10:55 PM
cmichini, Your logic is undeniable. Love it!

hoffmang
04-05-2011, 11:07 PM
Project Exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile) is a far more effective program. The only issue for its widespread adoption is that it gets voters out of the polls that disproportionately impact one party...

-Gene

Swiss
04-06-2011, 7:00 AM
Gun owners need to be part of efforts to reduce gun violence. Project Ceasefire, which is implemented in various flavors across the country, presents the hard core, violent offenders in a community with a choice: we either harshly prosecute you and your buddies, or you take part in a barrage of social services that'll help you turn your life around.

Uxi
04-06-2011, 7:23 AM
Most gun violence is by gang members. Go after the gangs (RICO, etc) and probably solve much of the problem. The guns aren't the issue.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/circumgun.png

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/

Stonewalker
04-06-2011, 8:53 AM
Here's a link to a Mother Jones article on the "Boston Miracle"

http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/01/straight-outta-boston

Thanks BKinzey, I somehow left out the link.

Swiss
04-06-2011, 9:09 AM
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet but how do you read this graph? The sums of the percentages are well over 100%...if 95% of homicides in 2005 are gang related, then all others should total 5%

Most gun violence is by gang members. Go after the gangs (RICO, etc) and probably solve much of the problem. The guns aren't the issue.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/circumgun.png

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/

Connor P Price
04-06-2011, 9:11 AM
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet but how do you read this graph? The sums of the percentages are well over 100%...if 95% of homicides in 2005 are gang related, then all others should total 5%

Gang related arguments during the commission of a felony.:eek:

Connor P Price
04-06-2011, 9:14 AM
Project Exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile) is a far more effective program. The only issue for its widespread adoption is that it gets voters out of the polls that disproportionately impact one party...

-Gene

I hadn't ever heard of that program.

From the linked article:
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Brady Campaign were both early and vocal supporters of Project Exile
Now that's not something you see to often!

Uxi
04-06-2011, 9:24 AM
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet but how do you read this graph? The sums of the percentages are well over 100%...if 95% of homicides in 2005 are gang related, then all others should total 5%

The categories look like they're separate from each other but not cumulative. Basically, most gang homicides are with guns while non-gang felony homicides have been rising to just under 80% being caused by guns. Neither is particularly surprising me, though anti-nutters would probably want to claim we'd see half as many deaths if we had stricter gun control (though we'd counter with Lott, etc).

intheknow
04-06-2011, 9:26 AM
Gang related arguments during the commission of a felony.:eek:

yeah but the chart is still not putting out the right numbers to its "%"s for a given year, the numbers or percents are well over 100%.... I think someone screwed up on putting the lower line plots a little too high.

Uxi
04-06-2011, 9:31 AM
yeah but the chart is still not putting out the right numbers to its "%"s for a given year, the numbers or percents are well over 100%

I think you're reading it wrong. They're not intended to be cumulative or relative to each other.

I read that as meaning if there were 100 gang homicides, 96 or 97 of them would have been shootings. Seems like a no brainer. The other 3 or 4 were stabbed, choked, stomped, etc. Out of 100 non-gang-related homicides committed in a felony (armed robbery, etc), call it 79 of them were caused by a gun. The rest being stabbed, choked, etc. Doesn't sound too surprising, either, though looks like a 20% increase or so since '85.

From the same link, here's the cumulative:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.png

Connor P Price
04-06-2011, 9:31 AM
yeah but the chart is still not putting out the right numbers to its "%"s for a given year, the numbers or percents are well over 100%.... I think someone screwed up on putting the lower line plots a little too high.

I was just horsing around. I haven't actually had a chance to read the article yet as its been a busy morning.

Connor P Price
04-06-2011, 9:33 AM
I think you're reading it wrong. They're not intended to be cumulative or relative to each other.

I read that as meaning if there were 100 gang homicides, 96 or 97 of them would have been shootings. Seems like a no brainer. The other 3 or 4 were stabbed, choked, stomped, etc. Out of 100 non-gang-related homicides committed in a felony (armed robbery, etc), call it 79 of them were caused by a gun. The rest being stabbed, choked, etc. Doesn't sound too surprising, either, though looks like a 20% increase or so since '85

That's exactly how it should be read.

Swiss
04-06-2011, 9:43 AM
OK, thanks. So the graph ACTUALLY shows that the use of guns in most homicides is on the rise.

Dreaded Claymore
04-06-2011, 4:46 PM
Here's a link to a Mother Jones article on the "Boston Miracle"

http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/01/straight-outta-boston

*reads article*

Whoa. This is a really good look at the matter. All of you fellows who haven't read it, should.

Uxi
04-06-2011, 5:33 PM
I got to "Trying to stop American gang violence without stopping it in L.A., in other words, is like trying to reduce global warming with no help from the United States." when I tuned out. There's a few other references to social causes that I'm... suspicious of, too.

Most of the rest sounds pretty good, though I don't think it should be mutually exclusive with Bratton's top-down "broken-windows" strategy, either.