One Way To Reduce Gun Crime - Solve Nonfatal Shootings

Gun control and the right to bear arms has been on the minds of many since the Newtown massacre and the murder of two firefighters responding to a fire outside Rochester, New York. There are some things that can be done without even addressing the issue of gun control. One of them involves better law enforcement investigation of nonfatal shooting crimes.

A startling amount of them go unsolved for one reason or another.

If someone is murdered in NJ for example, 65% of the cases are closed as solved. For nonfatal shootings, the percentage plummets to 21%. Figure that many of the nonfatal shooting perps go on to commit other crimes.

A more concerted effort to solve the nonfatal gun crimes could have a significant effect on the crime rates and firearms incidents statewide. Heck, many police departments don't even track that kind of information.

It's an area ripe for reform and concentration of effort.

"You’ve got dozens and dozens, if not scores, of dangerous people who commit heinous crimes, who walk away and who are not held to account, and that has all kinds of implications for public safety in those towns," said Eugene O’Donnell, John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor in Manhattan, and a former assistant district attorney. He said failure to track nonfatal shootings underscores "the medieval approach that police have to crime statistics. You would think that this would be a barometer of the safety climate and the police would be on top of it."

While trying to gather information for this story, The Star-Ledger found few police departments track nonfatal shootings or the number of those cases solved. In some places, like Jersey City, the data was readily available. But most agencies needed several months to compile the statistics because the incidents first had to be identified then organized.

Because the category is not tracked as closely as homicides, experts said many law enforcement agencies may not comprehend the full extent of the problem. That would be a mistake, said Wayne Fisher, a professor at the Rutgers University Police Institute and its former director. The low closure rates in New Jersey, he said, can pose a serious threat to the public.

"What’s left on the street is both the firearm and the person that’s willing to use the firearm," Fisher said. "Let’s face it, an offender who is willing to shoot a gun at another person is an obvious threat to the public safety, whether or not that bullet, misses, injures, or takes the life of the intended victim."

Earlier this month, a 19-year-old Newark man was shot multiple times while driving through the city’s South Ward, an attack for which he remains hospitalized and barely conscious, investigators said.

Police have not identified a suspect, and no witness has stepped forward. The teen’s passenger, who was the intended target, has barely spoken to police, and the victim has been unable to communicate.

If police were forced to take a better look at nonfatal shootings and devote more resources to those crimes, they could not only bring down the crime rates, but close those cases and bring the criminals behind them to justice.

There are serious roadblocks to overcome, notably because many of these crimes go unsolved because of a lack of witnesses or other evidence that can be used to track down those responsible.

It will also involve spending more money on investigations, including crime labs and technologies that some police departments can ill afford in the current economic climate. Yet, focusing on these particular crimes could pay dividends in the long run and improve public safety considerably.

In Wake of Giffords Assassination Attack, Calls To Ban Extended Clips; UPDATE: Rep. King To Call For 1,000 Foot Ban?

In the wake of the attempted assassination of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords that left six dead and 13 injured, several members of Congress have proposed banning extended clips such as the one apparently used by Jared Loughner in the attack.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has introduced a measure in the Senate while New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney is expected to introduce a similar measure in the House.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said he would introduce the measure to re-establish a prohibition that lapsed in 2004 on clips that feed more than 10 rounds at a time.

"The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market," Lautenberg said in a written statement announcing his plans. He said he would file the bill when the Senate returns to session later this month.

The focus on Capitol Hill isn't a gun ban, but rather on the extended clips that allow a user to fire off 30 rounds before having to reload. However, expect Republican and NRA opposition to the proposed measures.

UPDATE:
Huffington Post is reporting that Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is going to introduce a measure that would make it illegal to carry a weapon within 1,000 feet of an elected official.

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.

King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The proposed law follows the Saturday shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left six dead, including the judge, and 14 wounded.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation's most outspoken gun-control advocates, is backing King's measure and is expected to put the weight of his pro-gun-control organization behind it.

Such measures wont prevent criminal acts such as the Giffords attack, but provide additional criminal sanctions for those who break the law. I think enforcement of the proposed measure would be extremely problematic.

It would seem to trump concealed carry among those who are lawfully within their rights to otherwise carry weapons and raises a question as to how the law could be enforced in the residential areas around members. Would this mean that a representative living in an urban area has a zone of 1,000 feet around them where possessing weapons is potentially illegal?

The measure may end up being limited to members participating in public events or at their offices or the 1,000 foot zone is reduced to something more manageable - 500 or 250 feet.

UPDATE:
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, defined large capacity ammunition feeding devices but did not establish an outright ban.

DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING
DEVICE.—Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended
by section 110102(b), is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
‘‘(31) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar
device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has
a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted
to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
‘‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed
to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire
ammunition.’’

The prohibition was written such that it was unlawful to transfer or possess those items except if they were otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the enactment date (1994) and there were certain additional exemptions from the requirement. This wasn't an outright ban but did limit the transfer and production of new extended ammo feeding devices such as extended clips. Reenacting the 1994 legislation would not ban the extended clip and would not have prevented the attacks. Had a ban been in place, it could have reduced the number of people injured and/or killed.