BY REBECCA SHEEHAN
NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
Since the tragedy that struck Newtown, Connecticut this past year, many concerned parties have sprung up in the Garden State looking for the Governor to enforce stricter gun laws throughout the state. Most concerned gun-control advocates are just simply looking out for its residents – and a little help from Governor Chris Christie will definitely help out.
As a state in 2011, we saw 380 murders with 264 those crimes having used a handgun, shotguns were used in five murders, and a rifle was used in one, according to the state’s Uniform Crime Report. And of those murders, 57 percent took place in the state’s six largest urban centers: Camden, Elizabeth, Jersey City, Newark, Paterson and Trenton.
“Trenton needs help,” Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer, said to The Record, stating the city of Trenton has seen more than 20 murders this year alone. “I implore Governor Christie to get serious about the terrible impact that gun violence is having on our cities and sign these bills.”
And although the 12 gun bills sitting on the Governor’s desk may decrease crime in the violence heavy areas of the state, many residents are realistic to the fact that the laws may not work in their favor.
“Though I can live with tougher laws aimed at reducing illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun use, I don’t buy into the notion that increasing penalties will significantly reduce the occurrences of urban gun violence,” said Kenneth McDaniel, vice president of Paterson’s City Council, who believes the underlying problems need to be fixed first.
“Proper education and gainful employment tends to spur non-violent lifestyles,” he continued. “Let’s invest in urban education. Let’s put our unemployed and underemployed citizens to work. By doing these things we reduce the propensity for street crime and related violence.”
Currently over a dozen gun bills have flooded Christie’s desk and are waiting for his immediate action. If signed by Christie the laws will help: impose tougher criminal penalties for people convicted of gun trafficking, require prospective gun buyers to attend a training class, prevent people on the federal terror watch list from buying a gun, create a commission to study the causes of violence, and require people who want to buy ammunition to have a firearms ID card or permit.
“I’m plowing my way through them. So I’ll have answers probably in the next week or two about all of them,” Christie said.
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Although this video is presented from a pro-gun viewpoint.....step back and notice that the stats used ( FBI published crime statistics) use non-partisan FACTS in the discussion. Maybe the anti-gunners should take note--->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
.
The .50 Cal BMG round was invented by John Browning over 100 years ago. In the 100 years of it's availability how many crimes have been committed with any rifle firing this cartridge? If you guessed less than ten in the US, you are correct. If you guessed none in New Jersey, you are also correct.
Now, when touting any new laws as being effective, would the problem they are solving technically have to exist first? Yet, this is being lauded as nothing less than "sensible", why?
This serves as a pattern of calling for restriction, and less freedom all to benefit safety. Yet, we see again that the idea that you ether "protect guns, or protect children" so often echoed in the arguments of anti-freedom. This false dichotomy often is regarded as some sacrosanct logical outcome, when the reality could not be farther from the truth. Proxy to guns, or even protection of gun ownership is not the opposite of protecting the public. We must ask ourselves if the government is not only obligated, but even able to protect citizens. Laws that do not even work in cross referenced data sets from heavily restricted countries are often cited as example as to what is possible. Yet, we only see that with further examination to the actual statistics similar controls where largely ineffective in those countries. That their rates had actually gone up in overall murder, and other violent crimes. Most notably the 1997 ban of handguns in the UK. Where only in 2009 they saw rates parody to pre ban numbers. 12 years before comparable rates of murder, and near static gun murder rate for that duration does not sound like life saving policy to me. They couldn't even stop mass shootings, as we saw in Cumbria in 2010. For all their trouble they saw no advantage, and had to hire an additional 20,000 law enforcement officers to boot. Even today the UK as of 2011 had a slightly higher gun murder rate than the year of the ban.
Effective?
Sorry to ramble on, I didn't answer the question.
No, 12 sighed pieces of paper, and the laws they claim will save lives will not.