Sunday, September 02, 2007

Seizing Illegal Guns—Thinking About 2%

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Despite the fact that Cincinnati Municipal Code 910-23 (the anti-marijuana ordinance) has made possession of small amounts of marijuana an offense that carries a permanent criminal record and possible jail time—and further, despite the fact that this law is being enforced unequally, with over six times as many blacks being arrested in the first year of the law as whites, several incumbent City Council candidates claim the law was effective because it took 62 guns off the streets.  However, those 62 guns represent less than 2% of the overall number of people arrested.  How does this compare to national studies examining the overall number of people in possession of illegal guns?

In other words, what if we could discover that more than 2% of the general population carries illegal guns?  Wouldn’t that indicate that CMC 910-23 is a failure, indicating that marijuana smokers are less likely to carry guns than others?

In the short amount of time I had to explore the topic, I did find a few noteworthy resources, all of which indicate that CMC 910-23 (which was introduced by Cecil Thomas) is completely worthless.

Here is some information from an abstract sponsored by the US Department of Justice.  Here are some relevant quotes:

If Cincinnati’s population is similar to Rochester’s, then this data is revealing.  It means that CMC 910-23 finds guns within 2% of a certain population, while another identified population has three times as many people with illegal firearms.  Since more urban adolescent males can be seen frequently wearing baggy pants as opposed to smoking joints in the open, police would be more likely to find illegal guns by making droopy pants illegal and decriminalizing marijuana entirely.

(I am not saying I support the idea of making droopy pants illegal—I do not—but it seems quite persuasive that droopy pants might lead to more gun confiscations than pot smoking!)

From the other side, we might consider the words of John Kaplan on this issue:

But back to some number crunching.

According to an article by Beth Bjerregaard and Alan J. Lizotte called “Gun Ownership and Gang Membership” (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology; Fall95, Vol. 86 Issue 1, p37-58, 22p), a large number of youths involved in gangs have guns:

Later in the study, the researchers sought to sample an “at-risk” urban sample of adolescents, tracking them to see what percent were in gangs, and what percent of those in gangs had guns, compared to the number not in gangs who have guns.  Some results of that study are below:

Please excuse the extensive citations, but I trust, gentle reader, that you will perceive the importance of understanding these kinds of numbers.  Remember, less than 2% of those arrested for possessing small amounts of marijuana had a gun—and both Leslie Ghiz and Cecil Thomas have said that the main reason they support this law is to allow officers the ability to search for guns.

However, it should be obvious that the general population of urban adolescent males are likely to be carrying illegal guns at a rate much higher than 2%.

So, rather than giving 98% of the thousands of disproportionately black males permanent criminal records and jail time for smoking weed—all due to an alleged desire to cut back on illegal gun ownership—why not address what appears to be a real root cause:  urban adolescent culture getting involved in negative (and perhaps gang-related) activities which increase the likelihood of illegal gun ownership?

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) happens to have a study published where they offer some solutions to the adolescent culture of gun ownership—and none of them have to do with arresting people for smoking weed or drooping their pants.  (You can find a download of this report here.)

In the seventeenth page of the download, the OJJDP suggests things like preventative services, working with witnesses to violence, public education, reducing fear, making guns safer, reducing availability and stricter regulations, enforcing laws, drug treatment and prevention, and improving opportunities.

You’ll notice that arresting people for weed or baggy trousers did not make the list.

The report does discuss gun buy-back programs.  What if one week of gun buy-backs in Cincinnati got more than 62 guns off the street?  In the first year of 910-23, the City spent over an additional $41,000 defending City Ordinance cases.  It is easy to conclude that this increase is attributable to the one ordinance that changed in that year—the anti-marijuana ordinance.

That would compute to over $600 per gun.  Surely a buy-back program would be able to secure illegal guns for significantly less than that.

As we enter a campaign season where politicians say empty phrases about supporting “fiscally responsible budgets” (has any politician ever ran on a platform of a “fiscally irresponsible budget”?), let’s remember where we should put our priorities.  We have been told that we don’t have money to secure human service funding, but meanwhile we have tens of thousands of dollars to arrest thousands of primarily black males—all to confiscate 62 guns with a hefty price-tag per gun.

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

cincysue says:
02 Sep 2007  at  08:35 pm | #

I don’t know statistics. But I bet you might find that 2% of almost any population could possibly be in possession of illegal guns, be they hunters, criminals, white collar workers, senior citizens or soccer moms. Many people that are so obsessed with the 2nd amendment, particulary the militia crowd, don’t believe in gun registration. Bet the percentage of illegal guns in that population far exceeds that of the pothead population. People pass guns around and don’t necessarily register them. That’s an illegal gun. I’d like to see some kind of movement toward flushing out and punishing the adults that are putting guns in the hands of juveniles.  And all of the points you made were excellent.

This law is a dismal failure if the intent was to get guns off the street and reduce crime and a life altering disaster for a lot of people. There is no more correlation between marijuana use and violent crime than there is between alcohol use and violent crime. In fact I bet that statistics would show that 90% or more of those involved in guns and violent crime, drink alcohol. Whether it’s applied disproportionatley to young black males or not, which of course it is, and even if it were applied fairly across the population, it’s a bad law, senseless, unnecessary and I think discriminatory law.

says:
03 Sep 2007  at  09:05 am | #

cincysue, I agree with your guess—though I can’t prove it.  It seems to me that probably 2% of the general population on average has an illegal gun.  Which would mean that random searches would get as many or more results than this stupid ordinance, which probably cost us $41,000.

says:
03 Sep 2007  at  09:39 am | #

To base an ordinance on a statistical aberration--2 percent, compiled from a biased source, no less--is insane, but even more insane is the idea of a war on guns and the idea of a war on drugs.
We must get used to the concept that governments were created in the first place to wage wars.
As the bumper sticker says:
“Bush is creating terrorists faster than he can kill them.”
Wars will ever be thus.
Don’t care for wars?  Then join me in rejecting governments.

Bearman says:
04 Sep 2007  at  09:54 am | #

Don’t care for wars?  Then join me in rejecting governments.

David does that mean you stopped paying taxes??

cincysue says:
04 Sep 2007  at  04:59 pm | #

You know I also reject governments--in my mind. And I’m a World Citizen and don’t believe in artificial borders, drawn by rich people. Why would an American mean any more to me than a Peruvian or a Sri Lankan or a Laotian? Therefore it’s nothing to me if people have papers or not. One people. One world. But governments do exist as do borders so all I can do is work to try and make a better world. Sounds cliche but face it, the revolution will not be televised, because it won’t happen, not in this lifetime.

says:
04 Sep 2007  at  08:24 pm | #

Bearman,
What’s your point?

I always admired “Mac” McCrackin for doing just that, and even going to jail for it.

Ric Ricland says:
05 Sep 2007  at  11:45 am | #

I like the anti-pot law not because it stops the spread of pot-smoking, but because it reminds potheads smoking weed is still illegal and they’ll go to jail if caught.

This means I can sit in places like Washington Park without breathing in a cloud of pot smoke. This also means that if the guy next door is polluting the hall with his weed, I can call the cops and have him thrown in jail.

I’m all for the that.

ricland

says:
06 Sep 2007  at  06:14 pm | #

ricland,
I’m sure Bill Cunningham as well as Jim Scott would designate you a “great American” if you shared your view with them.
Go for it!
You won’t find either of them hanging around Washington Park, by the way.