Few things expose the hypocrisy of anti-gun activists and their allies more clearly than the recurring spectacle of so-called “violence interrupters” and their own violent tendencies. The story has become repetitive but worth reiterating because the pattern keeps “pattern-ing.” In theory, the idea of “credible voices within the community” (typically, “reformed” criminals with knowledge of local criminal networks) stepping in to squelch beefs and stop violence before it erupts is unobjectionable. But, like a lot of ideas in modern “gun violence” policy, the yawning gap between theory and real life is instructive.
Law-abiding gun owners are treated by gun control activists as nothing more than nascent criminals. They have to be vetted, surveilled, registered, and treated with ongoing suspicion, to the degree they are tolerated at all. Meanwhile, these same activists treat actual criminals victimizing others in their own communities as the inevitable byproducts of an unfair system who have to be understood, sympathized with, and repeatedly given the benefit of the doubt. In the case of “violence interrupters,” this extends to providing them with public money and free reign to associate with active lawbreakers. In either case, the gun control activists will insist it’s all for the “greater good.”
Yet it is increasingly difficult to sustain that delusion when so-called community “violence interrupters,” along with other high profile anti-gun activists, repeatedly find themselves accused of serious violent crimes, as we have previously reported on, including here and here.
Last week brought yet another case of a violent interrupter, this time out of Baltimore, charged with the very crimes he was supposed to be preventing. A worker with Safe Streets, a taxpayer funded community program that uses “violence interrupters” to hopefully intervene and prevent violent conflicts, was charged with attempted first-degree murder and several firearm violations after a shooting.
Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott properly called the latest episode a disgrace but then erred in claiming the shooting was an isolated incident, "and should not be used to undermine the proven work that Safe Streets does each and every day."
The problem is that these repeated incidents don’t just expose individual failures or isolated embarrassments but undermine the credibility of a larger movement that insists it has the solution: focus on eradicating firearms, instead of arresting and strictly punishing violent actors, and intervene in conflicts with criminals instead of police officers.
Far too often – as gun control groups lecture law-abiding gun owners about public safety, responsibility, and the “dangers” of firearm ownership – the silence is deafening when individuals they champion as community leaders on violence prevention are charged with serious violent offenses. Or worse, when their own champions fall from grace, it often becomes just another occasion to call for even more gun control. The Second Amendment community is not only entitled to question their judgment but also their motives. Proponents of these programs should be prepared to answer the growing list of examples that call their credibility into question.
Safe Streets is a program that receives millions of taxpayer money via city, state, and federal funds and has already been subject to formal investigations on misuse of the money, as well as possible gang infiltration. Credibility is earned through consistency and outcomes, not rhetoric. And nothing prevents a violent recidivist from preying upon innocent members of his own neighborhood like putting him in prison for an extended period of time.
Indeed, law-abiding armed citizens have contributed far more to supporting safe communities and preventing “gun violence” than pie-in-the-sky “interrupter” schemes. Research consistently shows hundreds of thousands to millions of defensive gun uses happen every year across America, usually without a shot being fired. So as a broader point for the state of Maryland, if public safety is truly priority, why does Maryland continue to prioritize gun control focusing on law-abiding citizens rather than focusing on violent offenders?
The community programs approach relies heavily on informal, unstructured intervention and personal influence rather than proven fundamentals of public safety. While the right mentorship can play a supporting role, it is not a substitute for policies that produce meaningful results through targeting violent criminals, repeat offenders, urban gang activity, and the small percentage of people responsible for a disproportionate share of serious violent crime.
For decades, NRA has argued that if policymakers are serious about improving safety, they must confront criminals rather than burdening law-abiding citizens. Communities deserve a better approach than programs that make a questionable, and sometimes dangerous, assumption that those closest to violence are in the best position to stop it.
More Like This From Around The NRA
