- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
Ground Control to Spaceship Harrisburg: Yes indeed - we have a gun problem!
Submitted by Hannah Miller on Mon, 11/19/2007 - 3:01pm.
Governor Rendell, from yesterday's Inquirer about gun violence in Philly:
"How much will it take? What does the toll have to be before we do anything?" Rendell said during a news conference. He noted that two more Philadelphia police officers had been wounded by gunmen since Nov. 9, the date he proposed a mandatory 20-year sentence for shooting at a police officer.
"We have a problem," Rendell said, pausing. "Houston, we have a problem."
Oh yes we do. And you need to help today by making one simple call.
Whatever the gun lobby out there in outer space says....actually...guns do, in fact, kill people.
And we here on the ground in Philadelphia - who have to live with the results of some of the laxest gun laws in the country...we most definitely have a gun problem.
Tomorrow in Harrisburg, Governor Rendell will take the historically unprecedented step of appearing before the state house judiciary committee to urge them to stand up to the all-powerful NRA and move legislation that would limit people to buying... um... only one gun a MONTH. Only 12 guns a year!
You've probably been hearing about this legislation for a while - it's the CeaseFirePa legislation. It's been languishing in committee because everyone is so scared of the NRA, and for some state legislators, the violent deaths of urban Pennsylvanians are simply not a concern.
We will never have a sane gun policy unless we stand up to the gun lobby.
You can start today.
Please take a moment to pick up the phone and call a couple of people on the committee. It's a simple form of citizen action that makes a big difference. They listen. I just did it myself. Here's what I said (Rep. Kate Harper's office) - I got her voicemail:
Hi, my name is Hannah Miller, and I am calling to ask Representative Harper to support the gun-control measures that are coming up in front of the committee tomorrow. I live in Philadelphia and I have seen friends lose their loved ones and family members because of all these guns. Just this summer my friend had his 24-year-old son paralyzed and we as a city can simply not take any more of this. Please vote yes on HB 72 and 77. Thank you.
Something like that. That's all you have to do.
Here's the info and the members of the committee - call and let us know what they said! Email me back at hannahdmiller@gmail.com.
Thanks.
--------------------------
From HandgunSanity.org:
> Illegal "straw purchases" of handguns, and the people who
> arm the deadliest criminals like the robber who turned a gun on and murdered veteran Philadelphia police officer Chuck Cassidy, must be stopped, now.
>
> And the time for back-room deals that not only line the
> pockets of gun manufacturers and their henchmen and
> accomplices, while letting Pennsylvania's victims and
> survivors of gun violence continue to pay a deadly price,
> has to stop, now.
>
> Thankfully, the forwarded message below, provides you
> with the information and links to tell your elected
> member of the general Assembly and all the members of the
> Judiciary Committee to:
>
> Vote YES on HB 22 and help law enforcement limit
> qualified individuals to the purchase of no more than One
> Handgun a Month.
>
> Vote YES on HB 29 and require the reporting of lost and
> stolen guns.
>
> Target Members* of the House Judiciary Committee:
>
> Members who voted NO on HB 22 in June who need to vote
> YES
>
> State Representative Thomas R. Caltagirone (D-127:
> Reading), Chairman (717) 787-3525 (voted YES)
>
> State Representative Craig Dally (R-138 -Northampton)
> (717) 783-8573
>
> State Representative John Evans (R-5: Crawford & Erie
> County) (717) 772-9940
>
> State Representative Deberah Kula (D-52: Fayette &
> Westmoreland County) (717) 772-1858
>
> State Representative Jesse White (D-46: Allegheny, Beaver
> & Washington County) (717) 783-6437
>
> State Representative Kate Harper (R-61:Montgomery County)
> (717) 787-2801
>
> State Representative Carl W. Mantz (R-187: Berks and
> Lehigh County) (717) 787-3017
> State Representative Katie True (R-41: Lancaster County) (717) 295-5050
Bookmark/Search this post with:
You left out my favorite Rendell moment
from the article:
I like the worked-up Rendell way more than the casino <3-ing Rendell.
Worked up
or not, one-gun-a-month will not solve Philly's crime/violence problems. Won't even put a dent in them. But it would give politicians something to crow about come re-election time. "We did something about it! We did something about it!"
In the same way that politicians and special interests find insidious new ways to subvert supposed "campaign finance limits," thugs who believe human life is worthless will go the extra mile to get a gun. Thugs don't care what lawmakers do or say, but they'll be pleased if more hurdles are put in the way of law-abiding citizens who wish to defend themselves.
There is no magic bullet - no pun intended. The socio-economic roots of Philly's crime/violence problems were decades in the making. It will take a generation or more to cure them.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
Still worked up: Rebutting Mr. Diamond
Mr. Diamond: Thanks for coming to join us here, and being willing to engage the conversation. Your forces in Harrisburg who are OK with the status quo have again won the day, but will (hopefully) face the wrath of the majority of PA voters who can see the clear connection between availability of guns and the senseless losses that our city has endured and continues to endure.
I do not know how to put this more clearly: Yes, we all agree that the availability of guns is NOT the only cause of gun violence. It may not even be the MAJOR cause.
But it is a pre-condition to gun violence, and unlike so many of the other causes, it is addressible through legislation. I cannot for the life of me figure out what is so hard about this. My patients (many of them thugs) buy guns on the streets of Philly for $200 apiece, guns that were bought by the guy 'round the way who buys them in REading in bulk. This is the only way they can get guns. If that round the way dude does not come around, my patients do not have access to guns.
Why do they buy them? Why did they not finish school? Where is their dad? Why do they smoke?
I cannot answer any of these things. But I know that if someone turned off the spigot funneling guns into their neighborhoods, they would not be driving to NYC or Baltimore to find them there. They do not have cars. They would lament their inability to protect themselves but they would not have the guns.
Educate me. Tell me what is flawed about my argument.
Thanks
for the welcome. But I have no forces in Harrisburg. Ask around - they ALL pretty much hate me. :)
I do not know of anyone in Harrisburg who is OK with the status quo of crime/violence in Philadelphia. It is a serious problem that needs serious attention. As Philly goes, so goes the rest of the Commonwealth, and I think they all realize that.
But they also realize that after all the attention we've put on the Constitution since July 2005, enacting a statute that goes against Art I, Sec 21 & 25 would not fly very well with their constituents. Frankly, I don't put a lot of faith in CeaseFire's numbers. They may hold water in the Southeast, but go to western PA and you'll see that the firearm issue is much different, even with progressive Dems.
The flaw I see in your argument is with the 'round the way' dude. If we know he's traveling from round the way to Reading to make straw purchases, why aren't we giving him a bit more attention? Why aren't we enforcing the laws already on the books? All those sales are currently recorded and can easily be tracked and followed up on. Why has Rendell & Co. slowed down hiring in the State Police and assigned them to essentially providing security at slots parlors when they could be better utilized on this issue?
If the supply from PA would somehow magically dry up, thugs would not need to drive to Baltimore or NYC to find guns. Different dudes from Baltimore & NYC would set up mobile shops 'round the way to fill demand. And prices would be significantly higher, so it would take a few more petty burglaries and assaults and muggings and drug deals to raise the cash needed to buy one. Philadelphia would become a much more dangerous place. One-gun-a-month would do nothing to eliminate the pre-condition to gun-violence, it would increase it.
Look, up here in the sticks we are armed to the teeth. But we don't go around killing each other willy-nilly. While we sympathize and understand that there is a severe problem in Philly, we are not willing to give up our liberty for the promise of a tidbit of security (and especially for a tidbit that has failed to work elsewhere).
"Why did they not finish school? Where is their dad?"
These are the socio-economic questions we need to answer to solve the crime/violence problem (and yes, we need to do it together). And I don't think that Rendell & Co. giving Comcast $40 million in tax dollars to build a big tall building is getting to the heart of it. If Rendell & Co. were serious about the crime/violence problem, they would throw their corporate friends under the bus to focus those resources on it and start building a better Philadelphia - and in turn, a better Pennsylvania.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
Law-abiders
This issue baffles me so much, I often feebly post with questions that cause me to stare agape at the screen, as I can't understand why someone would answer the opposite of what makes sense. I write questions like: Why shouldn't someone have to report their stolen gun? To which someone will answer, "Because that is an infringement on my rights" or "Because it won't work."
The sad part about this debate is that the sensible gun-control people are often forced to defend sane policy improvements with answers to broad, social-science indictments of Philadelphia or the nation at large. It's never a debate about the issue at hand. It's a your-solution-is-not-a-solution and the same "law abider" nonsense with its dovetail into "generational problems" mumbo jumbo.
For once, can someone on the pro-gun side of the fence use something other than "society sucks" and "people will kill people and law abiders should be able to have arsenals jic." They always ask us for stats and tell us how we won't do anything with baby-step laws. Can they give me some stats about how many shootings, robberies, etc. are prevented by "law abiders" or how many "law abiders" used their weapon to stop a crime rather than used their gun to commit one?
(Cue Gaetano to tell me that all I do is complain or something...)
www.whatever-it-takes.net
All you do is complain.
Prove to me that law abiding citizens are a problem relative to owning firearms. You can't. You haven't been able to for over a year. All you do is toss around rhetoric and glib remarks. That isn't proof.
What happened today is a travesty. In particular, the tabling of the lost and stolen firearm bill. I really can't, as a gun owner, understand why that is a problem. It would be the FIRST thing I did to protect my own ass and the help protect others. While I don't think one hand gun a month will make much of a difference in the flow of firearms, it is something worth trying.
I post this at the risk of ending our "cease fire." That I know.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Proved my point
You proved my point, essentially.
I don't think you should have to prove to me your law-abiding proclivities, but that is essentially what the gun-lobby asks the gun-control side to do. They want impossible-to-find stats to prove that legislation aimed at reducing gun availability will work before it's enacted in a state with no real gun control. Any gun-control legislation enacted now would walk alone on an empty field of sensible laws. You acknowledge that there is nothing right now, not even a law that requires people to report that their guns are stolen. Why shouldn't an attempt be made to try to have something new?
As for my complaints, I'll continue to use rhetoric, etc. when rational points and requets by my side of the issue are attacked by tired rhetoric. I may be glib, but your whole movement stops progress because of the fear of a slippery slope that will take your precious arsenals.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
Fact is, Gaetano,
The vast majority of the State's residents favor a law requiring the reporting of stolen guns.
The gun lobby, at the behest of a relatively few people and the gun industry, are preventing such a law from being passed.
I know you support such a law, but it's also time for you to stop finding blame with gun control advocates for why nothing progresses on this issue, and place it squarely on the shoulders of gun owners.
Further, you have yet to prove that making it harder to own guns legally wouldn't reduce the number of guns that are purchased legally, which in turn would reduce the number of guns manufactured, which would make it harder to obtain guns illegally.
When you do so, I'll concede that legal gun ownership doesn't lead to more gun violence. In the absence of such proof, it seem the only prudent thing to do here would be to err on the side of caution.
Even if it would mean that you would have to endure the terrible hardships of having legal ownership heavily regulated.
In fairness to Gaetano
Josh, do you really know if this is true?
Gun owners are not the same as gun manufacturers. Now I am not saying it could not be true, I simply do not do if legislators in Harrisburg are stalling gun laws because individual gun owners ask them to, or if it is a gun industry trying to protect its bottom line, and influencing legislators in the process.
I agree that only gun owners have the legitimacy to challenge the gun industry in the media and in the Capitol to get the Gen Assembly to do the right thing.
However, there is a larger frame of corporate control worth examining here.
In past discussions,
Gaetano has indicated that he thinks the stance by gun control advocates - that all guns should be banned - is (at least one of) the primary reasons why many gun advocates adamently oppose any more restrictions.
I disagree. Most gun control advocates are not advocating for the banning of all guns, or even of all handguns. That is a slippery slope argument that is mostly hyperbole. Most gun control advocates know that such a ban could never happen, and instead are advocating for greater restrictions.
As to the primary motivation of legislators, I can't really say either. But I would imagine that if more gun owners would actively voice support for measures such as notification for lost or stolen weapons, we'd get more legislative action.
Admittedly, Gaetano does voice such support. So, in that sense, point well-taken.
Just to make conversation...
You appear to have used the term "law abiders should be able to have arsenals" as some sort of negative finger-wag at pro-gunners.
Is it safe to assume that you believe law abiders shouldn't be able to have arsenals? If so, why not?
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
Why law abiders should not have arsenals
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. You have to promise to hear me out with the same graciousness with which this conversation has (generally) proceeded to date.
Of course, that's the beauty of a blog: No one can interrupt me. :)
The arsenal is a potential public health threat. No matter how well you as a responsible gun owner guard your arsenal, having a society that permits this kind of accumulation makes it likely that a large number of people who are NOT as responsible will gather a similar collection, and not guard it as carefully. That 1% of gun owners who fail to guard their lethal weapons with care are an indirect threat to me and my family. Someone could break into their home and walk away with their weapons, and those weapons become part of the stream poison that is making it possible for a few seriously bad actors to ruin my beautiful city.
You can't keep anthrax bacilli in your house for the same reason. You might have the Level IV containment facility that allows you to be a responsible Anthrax collector, but allowing you to keep your anthrax collection means I need to allow Joe Sixpack to buy and store his Anthrax however he pleases. It's hard to regulate Joe without regulating you. I cannot be looking in every Anthrax-owner's basement to assure the right level of containment; and it is too great a risk to the public to allow Joe to have his anthrax stored in a box.
Bob Sixpack has Anthrax too, stored just right. But Bob drinks, and has bipolar disease. It's well controlled on medicine, but when Bob stops his medicine, he feels GREAT... for about a week. Then he gets REALLY mad. (I know Bob.) And then he starts to think his Level IV containment facility is a real waste of space and effort, and starts to think that his neighbor is pissing him off. I cannot be making sure every Bob takes his meds. I'm going to restrict your right to Anthrax because it is too great a risk to the public to allow Bob to have his.
So your arsenal is fine. It is the other folks' arsenals that I worry about. Their arsenals are not easly regulate-able. Banning them seems an obvious and prudent public health measure, and will not impact your inalienable right to protect yourself or blow apart squirrels or mailboxes or whatever it is folks like you do with your handguns that you cannot do with a rifle.
Do you buy that? The public health angle? Do you at least see my point? If you do: You are getting closer to understanding why us gun-control freaks think you guys are in outer space.
Political Doc
I see it, but I don't buy it...
Your argument is based on a fear of what might happen, which is a very dangerous road to start traveling down.
Along those lines, we should destroy all cars to prevent Bob from causing a fatal accident, close all liquor stores to keep him from drinking and shut down all movie theaters to prevent him from yelling "fire." All pose similar potential public health threats.
While banning my arsenal may seem like an obvious and prudent move to protect you and your family, I see banning it as a serious threat to me and my family (yours, too).
Not because I need to defend myself against mailboxes, squirrels (gave up hunting years ago) or even an imminent threat from common criminals (thank God for living in a small town). Any arsenal I assemble is assembled for one primary reason: to protect against tyrants. Thank God for those private arsenals assembled 230 or so years ago. Ancient history and/or farfetched, some might claim, but then they'd be ignoring the dangerous moves made by Bush & Co. over the last seven years.
The comparison to anthrax is somewhat off the mark, as anthrax bacilli - as far as I know - is not an inanimate object, does not rely on human intervention to 'do its business' and has no overarching defensive purpose as firearms do. Nor is it ingrained in the founding documents and principles of our nation and Commonwealth.
Private ownership of firearms was a deterrent to attack from foreign tyrants in the past and will make domestic tyrants think twice as well. It is also, coincidentally, a deterrent to common criminals.
I'll allow that if some yingyang with an arsenal fails to properly maintain or store their firearms and some tragedy occurs as a result, then there should be sanctions for his/her negligence. But making the jump to try to anticipate future negligence imposes so severely on my ability to defend myself and my family that I cannot support it. Why punish me for Bob's perceived potential future actions?
I won't be hunting any time soon (unless the economy totally tanks), have never shot a mailbox and do not anticipate shooting any common criminals (although I would, as a last resort to defend myself or a family member). But I absolutely see a potential future need to oppose tyrants, where the human toll would be much higher than what might happen if Bob goes off his meds. I certainly pray it doesn't happen, but I refuse to be left undefended against it.
Now if you can see my point, then you are getting closer to understanding why us gun-freaks think you guys are in outer space. :)
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
But, Russ, you aren't even
But, Russ, you aren't even right on your Constitutional history. (And I am assuming your foreign tyrants thing means you are talking about the US, rather than PA, constitution.)
The second amendment, in fact, most of the amendments, were passed as a way to defend individual states from the fear of a big, bad national government, that had a standing army. It was about state militias as a bulwark against the federal government, not Russ Diamond with an AK defending us all from Canada. It also had nothing to do with self defense in the sense you are describing it, either.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
It was Adolph Hitler I was
It was Adolph Hitler I was referring to, who used the armed citizenry of the US as one of his reasons for not invading. Since I'm a state guy, I don't worry much about the federal 2nd Amendment, though. I put more stock in Art 1, Sec 21 & 25 of the PA Constitution, which is far superior.
We have no state militia. We have a National Guard, but you know where they are right now and under whose authority they are acting. Gives me the shivers when I think about what the big, bad national government under Bush is capable of.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
Fear of what?
Is defense against an alternate-universe tyrannical house-by-house raid by the National Guard valid support of the right to stockpile weapons and keep demand for guns high? Would an arsenal be enough to prevent this raid?
If so, thank you to all of the people who have stockpiled weapons and prevented the National Guard from raiding my house.
Does it get more ridiculous?
www.whatever-it-takes.net
Yes, it does
It gets more ridiculous when good people assume that a legislative body passing a new law on top of laws that aren't already enforced believe that criminals and their suppliers will all of a sudden start following the law. That's not just alternate-universe, it's bizarro world.
No single arsenal will prevent jackbooted thugs from raiding your house. But if they have to first fight at my house, then at my neighbor's house and a few more along the way, you may have a chance to survive. And if they know that will be the case beforehand, they might think better of it all to begin with.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
Jackbooted Thugs?
What is a jackbooted thug? An FBI/ATF agent doing his/her job? How about guy who stormed into Amish schoolhouse with weapons to kill those girls last year? Is he a jackbooted thug? I have a better chance of encountering that type thug.
At each turn, the imagery and obfuscation of the real problem comes out. Sure, we have laws that aren't enforced, but we have few laws that could seriously lower gun demand and supply.
So, I don't think that it's daydreaming to think that laws that seek to lower the amount of guns purchased could curtail the supply enough to get guns off of the streets.
The you-have-laws-now-enforce-them argument against gun-control is another tired excuse.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
Worrying about jack-booted thugs
I agree with AJ. You live in a world of an ever-so-slightly unrealistic fear of governement gone wild. You assuage this fear by stockpiling weapons. I live with the ever-so-slightly unrealistic fear that some knucklehead who loses a craps game 2 blocks away will let fly a bullet that will find its way through my window into my kid's room. Stockpiling weapons will not assuage my fear, but my working to ban your stockpile will.
We're each coping with our own fears in our own way. With mine, I have patients and friends who have had this happen. Someone was murdered at Chew and Mt. Pleasant last year, within a block of my home. So I think my fear is pretty real. With yours, you can find survivors of 1940's Europe who have seen your scenario play out. Maybe in different surroundings with different friends, I would have fears and behaviors more in line with yours.
Anyway. I see your points, I hope you can appreciate mine. I'll continue to fight for my right to live in safety, and that fight includes a fight against a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
I'm all in for the bus tour. More later.
Political Doc
Godwin's law
I invoke Godwin's law to bring this thread to a close. :)
Political Doc
I just called Caltagirone's office.
(despite the fact I never pronounce it right.)
They must be getting a lot of calls because all they do is ask if you are for or against.
What are the guns for?
We usually hear alternate reasons for owning guns, 1) need to protect oneself or 2) shooting animals. How many guns does one need to accomplish 1, 2 or both? Currently, advocates that squashed today's baby-step laws, must think that one would need to acquire at least 13 in a year. Personally, I disagree with those people, as do most of Pennsylvanians.
Arsenals and the need to purchase countless instruments that kill seem to create an unnecessary demand for more and more weapons to be available for everyone both law abiding and non-law-abiding. If we regulate the amount of weapons that can be purchased by one person, we should lower demand in the market and thereby probably lower supply, maybe (I know, I know this won't work, even though it's never really been tried in Pennsylvania). I've never been able to defend radical ideas using comparisons based in economic principles, so this might not be right. When we have to answer questions like why people shouldn't have arsenals or acquire 13 guns in a year, we know why things won't change.
In light of today's votes,here's an exercise for all of us:
Walk down the street and ask ten people if they think it's wrong that people should have to report their stolen guns to the police. When all of them say that it seems reasonable and it's not wrong, tell them, "Oh, wait, don't worry. We'd never punish gun owners in such a way, they don't have to report their lost weapons." See the reaction on the faces of those stunned to find out that such a law doesn't already exist. Granted it's probably different here than in Potter County, but it underscores the pathetic state of gun laws here in PA and how little the public knows about them. I'll bet at least 70% of people probably think that the stolen-gun laws already exist.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
What are people getting out of this conversation?
If folks enjoy the back and forth with anti-gun control folks, I suppose that is a fine reason to continue this conversation.
However, traditionally YPP has been a place where "progressives" talk to each other about disagreements in policy or strategy.
So amongst self-styled progressives, what exactly is the debate here? I think the majority of us agree that:
a- gun violence in the city is out of control
b- Harrisburg could and should pass some basic measures, as CeaseFire has suggested, like limiting handgun purchases to once a month, and requiring gun owners to immediately report lost or stolen guns.
I am not sure as many of us agree on these points, but I suggest that:
c- most gun owners in the state--especially hunters--would probably be fine with the Gen Assembly doing something to curb gun violence in Philadelphia
d- war profiteers and gun manufacturers are trying to drive a wedge between mostly rural gun owners and people in Philadelphia and other cities in the state where gun violence is a problem.
e- gun violence in Philadelphia can be severely limited if guns were less available, but that there are other factors--like an underground drug economy--that contribute to gun violence
f- there is some local responsibility, as well as some federal responsibility, for transforming Philadelphia's economy into one that offers more prosperity and more support (like better schools, afterschool, parenting help, etc.) that could also help reduce or end gun violence.
We can talk to gun owners
I want to expand on the first part of the second section. There is a lot we can do to move the gun debate in a positive direction and it all starts with rural voters. These people are not crazy. Sure, they like guns but it's a cultural thing. If people from Philadelphia go to central Pa. and explain the situation, I bet we could find a lot of support. People are human and they will be moved by the horrible stories coming out of some neighborhood's in Philadelphia.
Also, there is a pretty high amount of respect for law enforcement officials. I am sure that cops in uniform calling for gun control would have a major impact in some smaller communities. In short, we need some good old fashion organizing to change people's minds.
---
Check out my website!
Solutions
I apologize for what may sound like glib remarks, but I felt they were warranted.
I like Ben's suggstion that we take the show on the road to the parts of the state that don't agree with gun-control. We should go to these districts and speak with people, show them what it means to live in areas of the city that are shooting galleries. It's easy to see things on the news and dismiss them as one-minute sound bites. It's hard to dismiss it when peopl
Often, anti-gun rallies and demonstrations happen in Harrisburg. They should happen in the districts of the people who consistently hold up gun control. Who's up to take the show on the road? I'm game.
Also, I believe chruch congregations need to emphasize that gun-control is right both socially and religiously. The Catholic Church, which I am a member of, could do a lot more on this issue. Personally, I believe Cardinal Rigali could emphasize the gun problem to his faithful, especially in light of Officer Cassidy's killing.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
so should we rent a bus?
seriously. I agree that talking to gun owners--not gun industry lobbyists--makes sense. I think it's also hard to do. It's easier to do stuff locally. So before taking on the hard stuff, I am more inclined to focus on local stuff. Like:
1- MOST IMPORTANT: getting our state leg delegation off its ass. Maybe they really have tried as hard as they can, and can't make progress...but come on!
2- getting more afterschool programs/creating high-wage jobs in Philadelphia.
3- engaging local orgs (especially unions) that are connected to statewide groups to mobilize members who actually live in places where gun owners live in larger numbers.
4- focusing on the DA's office. As Seth has suggested, our DA has a special squad that targets people who get their car insurance in NJ. Why doesn't the DA has a special squad that targets straw gun purchasers and arms dealers?
That's just me though. If someone wanted to start by busing out to rural counties and canvassing gun owners, I think that'd be real cool.
Barnstormers
I've always dreamed of barnstorming the state on this issue.
Personally, I think that we could focus on letting Philly have its own gun laws.
I'll contribute to funding the bus(es) and working to develop the message.
Email me at ajthomson175@hotmail.com if you'd like to be involved.
I'm sure we could get CeaseFirePA and other groups involved.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
local stuff
it doesn't resonate with you AJ?
AJ enjoys visiting turnpike
AJ enjoys visiting turnpike rest stops. You thought you knew. Now you do.
I do
Since Hardees bought Roy Rogers and subsequently ran it into the ground, where else can you get a Double R Burger? C'mon admit you miss the Fixins Bar.
Stopped twice on the way to and from the Phils-Pirate series in August.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
Everyone misses the fixins
Everyone misses the fixins bar. We all knew, now we definitely still know.
It certainly resonates
I agree that the local efforts you suggest are critical. However, we couldn't even get these bills out of committee.
Let's go to the places that elect leaders and put the facts on the table. One of the key speakers yesterday was a police officer. A broad range of people on this trip can help show that this issue is not simple and a solution that respects gun-ownership but tries to stop gun violence is attainable.
It could just be a raising awareness campaign.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
I am just thinking out loud here
What is our power in this debate as Philadelphians?
People like us really don't have much more than time and people to contribute right? So what action could one organize that would produce the most people in the shortest amount of time?
The more I think about it, a bus trip has a lot of appeal. It's easy to understand, it sounds like it could be impactful (to the average person), it could be fun, it could probably get media.
However, in terms of actual policy impact and even logistical concerns, it'd really be a one-off. So for the people you inspire or engage via such a trip, you'd need to set something up for them as a next step and I think it would have to be local.
What would that local next step be?
sidenote: This is a really interesting group that does bus trips with young and youngish (like us) city kids and sends them to rural areas of the state to volunteer canvass. Check them out: The Oregon Bus Project: www.busproject.org
You identified it above
PA is our larger house. Philly is our room. We have chores to do in both.
We take the show on the road and try to do some things. Clean the floors, etc. Show people our side of the issue and engage people on it (By the way, this has to be done in a mainstream, non-confrontational way without stunt-like signs and other props).
Then we come back and clean our room. We focus attention on the DA's office and have a working dialogue with them on gun crime. We get them to create the gun-crime unit. We focus attention on judges to punish the guilty.
We also work to get people involved in working in communities that suffer from high gun-crime rates and re-establish normal community institutions that these neighborhoods lack, i.e. community associations, youth programs, town watch.
This should take about three weeks, right.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
First steps to statewide tour on local level
Off the top of my head, here are the things that need to be done:
1) Identify local organizations, like Ceasefire and the AFL-CIO, that can sponsor the tour. We'd also need to figure out a budget and where the money is going to come from.
2) Recruit several victims of gun violence to participate in the tour. I think Lance Haver is clearly the headliner, but it would be good to have a few others. A lot of these folks come from low-income backgrounds, so some sort of stipend might be necessary.
3) Figure out partner organizations in places outside of Philadelphia. I would start with churches and colleges. Figure out which legislators could be pressured and where their districts are.
---
Check out my website!
Talking bus tour to support common sense gun legislation
No further postings on this since the above and below flurry on 11/21.
I have been thinking about this for years. I think the combination of some well-spoken young adults in wheelchairs, alongside some card-carrying pro-common-sense-gun-law Philly-suburbs based NRA members could make for good fodder for the front pages of local newspapers around the state. We should coordinate it with Rendell's next lectern pounding attempt to coax the legislature.
I think this is a job for Ceasefire. This is the kind of organizing that I believe they should be doing. I think they could raise the money for sponsorship, organize with local orgs (ideally, churches and medical groups,IMHO), etc.
I would come along, and have several patients I could recruit.
Political Doc
Bus Tour
Tony and I talked about this in our podcast, only it was more like the Big Gun, Rendell, going to do it. I think you need a big draw political leader to do it, but the idea of victims is good, too.
For it to really work, though, you should go further. You should recruit people who come out and see you, there and then, to come with you over to the local legislative enemies office. Media is one thing and it's fine... but putting real people from their districts in front of the politician will really move it.
---
The Russellian Incorporated Innovations Corporation
Lefty Homilies
Boots on the ground
I shy away from the great gun debate usually. I'm for gun control. I like DC's law. But I trained myself to keep my opinion to myself at a young age. Ya see, I grew up in an NRA household. I learned to shoot for sport and care for a firearm at a very young age. Ever go fishing in Summer with your family on a lake and have a picnic? We used to go to the Gun Club. Rifles, a picnic lunch, mom, dad, the three kids, the cocker spaniel and the great outdoors. Thanksgiving meant hunting season. You get the picture.
Well, I saw my father this morning and he initiated the conversation about Rendell's plea to the state legislators. And he couldn't understand why those three bills didn't leave committee. In fact, he was shocked to learn that there's no law mandating the report of a lost or stolen firearm.
And then I thought, I gotta get my dad in front of these nuts on that damn committee, waving his NRA card and asking them to act responsibly.
I have come to the conclusion that the only way we're gonna win this one is by taking the fight to them.
We really should get on a buss and hit the road. We're talking more than one day too. (Mind you, I haven't checked with the wife about barnstorming the state for a week). Maybe we should canvass these counties whose reps are unwilling to let Philly deal with its own problems. If we could get the moms and wives of fallen officers and murdered children to knock on doors in Berks and Westmorland and Erie Counties with us, look folks in the eye and beg them to contact their reps and tell them "Let Philly Take Care of Its Own Gun Problem", yea, I think it will have an impact. If we get a group of NRA members from Philly to do the same, yes, I think it would have an impact.
Boots on the ground can work wonders. Maybe that's what we need here.