Ray, can you clarify waht you're saying here. Are you saying we need to get rid of guns, handguns, etc.?

Or, is the post more about increasing the resources available to all Philadelphians related to education, access to jobs, etc.?

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

Thanks for posting your thoughts and opinions. I'd like to take a moment to address several of the points you raised in your blog:

You said, "In the past, conflicts and grievances left victims with black eyes, broken arms, and stab wounds — not an end to their life."

How long ago was this? Guns (including handguns) have been available for years with no appreciable change in the incidence rate of violent crime. Did the victim receive those injuries as a result of their efforts to defend themselves, or as a consequence of being too meek to resist (e.g., 90 lb. woman attacked by 250 lb. man)? In this situation, a handgun can serve as a valuable deterrent to further violent action against the victim.

In the next sentence, you said, "The easy availability of guns, weapons that intentionally depersonalize the violence their users inflict, has obviously changed things."

How easy is it to get a handgun? Have you ever tried? In my state (KY) we must undergo a thorough background check, a cursory mental health record check and wait 5 days to receive our weapon. A criminal can get a handgun within hours, with a call to a black market dealer. Gun laws unfairly penalize the law-abiding citizen. Also, the majority of handgun owners do not inflict any violence; rather, the weapon is used for deterrence, recreation, or a myriad of other uses.

Example: What if I were a woman who needed a way to defend myself from a deranged ex-boyfriend under a restraining order? Assuming I knew he was armed, I would have to wait 5 days to get an equal tool of self defense. If he showed up again after 3 days, waiting 3 minutes for the police could well result in my death.

You said, "Individual gun shooters are accountable for their own actions, but my guess is that the increase of gun-related acts of violence has to do with the corollary increase in gun availability."

Study after study has show this not to be the case. In fact, as the rate of firearm ownership increases, the aggregate rate of violent crime decreases. Who exactly are you targeting with your proposed laws, the criminals or law-abiding citizens?

You said, "A serious effort to institute routine gun buy-back programs and prosecute illegal arms dealers and straw gun purchasers would do a lot to curtail gun violence."

Gun buy back programs do not work as effectively as you think they may work. In fact, they typically net useless, rusted pieces of junk. I do like your thoughts on prosecuting illegal dealers and straw purchasers. Unfortunately, there are already laws on the books to prevent these crimes. Yet, they still occur! Are you sure that banning handguns outright would have any effect on their supply or use?

To say, "let's get rid of all handguns" implies that there is as easy way to do so. What do you propose to do? Just to let you know, myself and other responsible gun owners will resist your efforts to confiscate our lawfully purchased and kept weapons.

You said, "...without guns, people who don’t know how to resolve conflict non-violently will turn in greater numbers to knives, fists, pipes, and bats. Using violence as a tool to gain money or self-respect or to vent anger is never good, but using a less lethal weapon is better than what we have now."

A single kick to the head can kill. Getting hit in the head with a pipe (e.g., "blunt force trauma") can be more deadly.

Finally, you said, "but they also need to live in a Philadelphia that is not filled with angry, impulsive, desperate people who do really stupid things like shooting other people for no reason."

But it is. That is why I keep a concealed weapon on my person when traveling in your city.

I urge you to take a look at a couple books on the topic:

"Point Blank" by Gary Kleck http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Violence-America-Institutions/dp/02023...

for free on Google Books

Also, "

Finally, a great website:

http://a-human-right.com

pick-up trucks, baseball and country music. This country wouldn't be America without guns. This country has had firearms for as long as it existed. We make the guns , sell the guns, buy the guns, kill with guns ,and bury our wounded. That will never change about this country. We can't live with out a firearm and a piece of meat! This one of our god given rights, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. As long as its written, it will never change! But we can change the mindset of the bearer. Guns don't kill, people do. Guns just help speed up the process. Its a never ending battle that we will never win when it comes to guns and drugs in this country. Can we change something thats been embedded in our minds and souls for centuries? And how can we change the mindset of the old so we can help the young. The old are making the guns, and making the laws for the young to kill themselves. Can we live without a firearm, have you try to think of a world with out one of your faves? WE LOVE GUNS , VIOLENCE, AND TRADGEDY. Its the American way, its in videos, movies and songs. How can we Ray change a gun totting society for peace???????

Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog

Drugs kills millions of people every year
but still we as country are the #1 consumer of drugs

Cigarettes kills millions of people every year
but still we as country are the #1 consumer and manufacturer of cigarettes

Guns kills millions of people every year
but still we as a country are the #1 user and manufacturer of guns that kill people

We can't let go of the things that harm us the most.
We have diseases that we really don't want to cure.
We prolong these tyrants and past them down to our children.

Who are the biggest at fault , the manufacturer of these things
or the people that can't put that gun , cigarette, or anything else that kills down????

In order to change whats wrong with this city , we must first look in the mirror and fix us first.

Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog

I'll preface this by reminding everyone that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Is there a more-persecuted subset of our society than the "law-abiding gun-owner?" Above, we're reminded of the harrows of this population with the oft-repeated phrase "Gun laws unfairly penalize the law-abiding citizen." You'd think that they need their own civil-rights bill. The reality is that with all of their whining, this state places little restrictions on them. Despite laws in this city/state to register your dog, car, etc. each year, nothing exists for people to register their guns. No one alive can offer a sane justification of why this type of program doesn't exist (I realize it's your "right" by the way).

I know you need you guns, but come on, please stop. Please don't tell me how hard it is for you to wait a few days to get a goddamn gun. It's a gun. I realize in our instant-gratification world, you should be able to get a gun in the time it takes the guy in Vice City to find one, but we should have a little more respect for the weapon. If you have to wait a few days to get a gun, that's not unfairly penalizing you, that delay is making you wait to get another weapon that was made to kill other human beings.

In this state, it's harder to buy eggs on or near mishcief night than get a gun. Can we try a few things, see if they work, then remind us that guns don't kill people.

Boo-hoo, on-demand needer-of-guns. You'll just have to wait.

www.whatever-it-takes.net

You haven't even seen it.

www.whatever-it-takes.net

I gotta run to practice. But ill try to get out quickly what I’m thinking.
First, in response to Taz, I’d really like to know how many people actually use handguns to protect themselves. I would think, and I’m pretty sure the data agrees with me, that handguns are more times then not used accidentally, killing family and friends, used by children getting a hold of guns and accidentally killing themselves, along with the huge number of people getting them illegally and killing others.
Second, it seems the real solution is simple and that is gun control. Getting there is much more difficult. This is an issue that must be dealt with nationally and through the courts. (Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court is taking on a 2nd Amendment case.) Philadelphians, along with other urban areas feel helpless, as we sit back and continue to see our friends and family being killed. This feeling that nothing can be done because of either the NRA, the second Amendment or other factors, only makes the situation worse. We have to begin small. Let’s begin talking about what we can do here, starting to create a framework for a larger movement, that will help chip away at the greater problem, and change the gun crazy culture we live in.

It's a nice line in The Untouchables, especially when spoken by Sean Connery, but it's also a good question to ask, whenever you're contemplating any sort of total prohibition of something. What are you prepared to do to enforce a total ban on handgun sales, possession, and ownership?

You ban sales, and close the existing legal shops (except perhaps to police or military buyers). I'm sure we'd love to see an old Irish Philly cop kick down the doors of illegal gun operations. But what next? Do you support a stop-and-frisk policy to get those illegal guns out of people's hands? Are you willing to arrest, prosecute, and imprison anyone, under any circumstances, who's found in possession of a handgun? Because that's what we're talking about -- the commitment of a tremendous amount of resources to control gun possession in the city limits. Otherwise it changes nothing, or next to nothing.

The approach I would advocate falls under the "chip away" school of making gun ownership less attractive, and the model isn't prohibition of alcohol, drugs, or abortion, but cigarettes. On one side, you regulate the hell out of it -- and on the other side you tax the hell out of it. Regulation helps control the immediate effects of guns -- crimes, illegal ownership, accidents, theft, etc. And taxation doesn't keep anyone from owing a gun or ammunition, but makes it harder on the wallet to do so. And the revenue can fund health care, pay living expenses and college scholarships for kids injured by guns, and support a whole range of anti-handgun and gun-safety programs. You end up with fewer guns in homes and on the street, and you have more resources to fight the crimes we already see.

--Tim

Alcohol is a bad analogy. Yes, alcohol was legal and then illegal but that is as far as it goes. First, Prohibition was a sudden change instead of a gradual chipping away and change in culture as I was implying. Second, how would people make them? Do you honestly think that there would be a large bootlegging of handguns? Even if people somehow figured it out, I’m pretty sure the government could stop people from making large quantities of them. They can stop people from making bombs can’t they? Finally, people consumed alcohol because they liked to drink socially, or were addicted, and while some people really like handguns, I don’t think many people need them for social events or are addicted to them.
A “chip away” method is exactly what I was getting out, but only as a means for a larger vision of a handgun free America. Soon, a new Supreme Court case will be laid down by our great judges. Most likely, the ruling will destroy gun control legislation. We need to start thinking of a plan for change. After, Roe v Wade , conservatives were already prepared to rally the troops and begin the process of chipping away at the ruling. We can do the same.

Thanks, Ray.

Whether someone disagrees with what Ray is saying in specific regards to guns, the point remains that both Ray and Lance have been saying with regards to this tragedy: the easiest thing is finding and punishing the person who did this, and then saying, "problem solved." But, when we isolate this to an individual act, we lost sight of just how screwed up our society is. It is why Lance has avoided talking about specific details of the case- because in the midst of this tragedy, while personalizing this by telling the story of Daren, he wants to make sure we all know this incident is a symptom of something much larger.

I understand that handguns can be used for target practice, probably much less for hunting. But I still think that if handguns continue to be legal, there will still be a large market for illegal handguns, and the problem will continue. The small number of people who use them to shoot at Osama pictures or whatever, can due with a rifle, not a handgun.

That being said, I understand that prohibiting handguns is a far off idea, and cracking down on straw purchasing is more attainable. As we have seen in PA, Straw purchasing limitations are extremely difficult, and the issue isn't going to get any easier with the Supreme Court decision that most likely will restrict gun control legislation. We have to begin somewhere though to change this gun crazy society. This is too important of an issue, for the victims, their families and friends, and our city, to let the NRA or 5 crazy ass judges, decide that we have to sit back and do nothing.

First, as I already said, and you can read above, handguns are not a realistic black market commodity. So yes, if you make them illegal then people won’t be able to get them. The issue of the handguns in use is a little different, but eventually, handguns would be extinct.

Second, I understand that a ban is unconstitutional at the moment and completely unrealistic. You are missing the point I am trying to make here. I said this before and ill say it again: Like Roe v Wade, conservatives have slowly chipped away at that ruling and have made that ruling very fragile. I think we can do something similar. Through a long process of planning, framing,and regulations, we can eventually begin to change societies view on handguns.

Finally. No, i am not bitter at PA, the NRA, and others, I'm furious. I see that as a reason for action, not apathy.

I have to get back to class but real quick.
I think you are missing the point when you say:

"I'm not really for banning firearms, even just handguns, for the sake of doing that and nothing else."

Nothing else? That is my whole point, we need to do ALOT else. I think in creating a serious change, you need to have a larger vision, and then start with smaller short term wins. We should fight for regulation of straw purchases but we should not end there because it will not solve the larger issue here. Handguns will continue to kill people.

First of all, let’s start with the bill of rights. The 2nd Amendment was created for “a well regulated militia” and has been largely taken out of context. Dan could probably tell you more about that one. Taken out of context or not, I still think handguns should be restricted. When rights hinder on my freedom and create a large danger to all citizens, there are amendments to that right. Take freedom of speech. You lose your right of speech on numerous occasions such as screaming fire in a movie theater, but for some reason people think guns should be completely unregulated. I believe that you should be able to have a hunting rifle…but a handgun, which causes mass destruction of human life should be restricted.
Do you believe we have a problem with gun violence? Do you think catching someone’s grandmom who gave away a gun is going to solve the problem? I totally agree with you that we need to start somewhere, but your solution is not a solution, and your thinking will only cause a continuing problem in our city. We need to change our crazy gun culture, which this post was originally about and apparently you are a part of, by small gradual steps that someday will set the stage for something bigger. My point is, this is not simple, and one idea will not change the larger problem.

I find it alomst funny that people consistently talk about guns instead of the many route causes of people shooting each other.

We need to take a serious look at re-entry from prison, instead of just talking about it. People need to step up and mentor some youth instead of talking about them or being afraid of them walking down the street.

We have to get involved with the schools and the prisons, these are the key two places that can prevent crime and reduce recidivism.

The people deserve better, the public service workers need a greater level of respect instead of trying to find what is wrong with them, stop finding what DHS didn't do or police don't do, respect them for what they do actually do.

I think taxing guns, along with going after straw purchasing are both better steps than doing nothing, but I keep getting the feeling that people are putting out ideas as the means for the end.

Using the cigarette analogy, I think that the extremely large anti cigarette campaign has had a greater effect changing the culture then simply taxing them. The gradual change in our cultural perception of cigarettes has made Americans more tolerable and more demanding for restrictions on them. It amazes me that people take huge offense to cigarettes, which have some effect on others, while not taking huge offense to guns, which effect many.

I think the issue has to be dealt with in a couple different ways. We need to continue fighting for more gun restrictions here however ineffective they may seem, along with spreading the distress and anger that is felt in Philadelphia, to a larger audience.

Well, I think these discussions are largely about political tactics and effective public policy as much as they are about values -- and that's a good thing! They're also about finding common ground -- some things that the always nebulous grouping/concept "progressives" can, with whatever reservations, agree on.

It's also about shifting the debate. If you begin the discussion by saying, "there are no legitimate reasons for anyone to have a handgun, ever," then the argument becomes about hunting and target shooting and self-defense and the second amendment, and hypotheticals about citizens fighting tyrants or proletarian revolutions or zombies or whatever. Not only are the paths well-worn and the positions entrenched, which makes it boring -- but it's more an ideological discussion than a practical one.

If you turn it into a discussion about the social costs of handguns -- both tangibly, in terms of health care, police and judicial costs, security, wrongful death, etc., and intangibly, in terms of everything we've mentioned a thousand times (and which Ray and others reprise above) -- and then show how handgun makers, salesmen, owners bear some responsibility for those costs, then you have both a potentially bigger coalitional tent and a much greater opportunity to speak about the dangers of guns.

Taxes, regulations, and social attitudes form a feedback loop. The key thing is to get people to grasp/accept that this is not a good like other goods, that its dangers and regulatory requirements require special treatment.

Also, you get the money.

--Tim

Tim, you say:

It's also about shifting the debate. If you begin the discussion by saying, "there are no legitimate reasons for anyone to have a handgun, ever," then the argument becomes about hunting and target shooting and self-defense and the second amendment, and hypotheticals about citizens fighting tyrants or proletarian revolutions or zombies or whatever. Not only are the paths well-worn and the positions entrenched, which makes it boring -- but it's more an ideological discussion than a practical one.

What is wrong with an ideological conversation? This is a post processing a reaction to the senseless injury of the son of a very ideological man. This conversation has revealed a difference in ideological values. You seem to assume everyone on here shares the same ideology and that we can move into a practical conversation without any more fanfare.

Framing handguns as essentially immoral weapons that are only made to kill people (legally or illegally) is far from a well-worn political path. I think it's something that mainstream Democrats have carefully avoided as a part of a discourse on guns.

In terms of your specific idea, a sin tax on guns is interesting. I am not sure how it will reduce the sale of illegal guns. It may have the effect of lowering the number of guns manufactured which will eventually reduce the sale of illegal guns. In terms of revenue, there were about 4.7 million handguns sold nationally in 2005. Let's say that 300,000 or 400,000 of those were sold in PA. A quick google, and I can tell you the average handgun seems to cost about $400. Therefore, if we sin taxed at 20%, we're talking about roughly $32 m a year in revenue. Remember the state budget is worth about $27 billion.

Leaving that aside, your practical solutions are all about guns, and gun violence is not all about guns.

It's also about the way people handle conflict and think of life, not to mention a reflection of people's access to opportunity. These are practical concerns as well that have been largely ignored in almost any media conversation on gun violence and even here at YPP.

Let me repeat myself from above:

I am interested in coming up with some practical solutions to getting guns off the street, but as a community, as a city, as a region, I'd also like to see some acknowledgment and a corollary willingness to act on the bigger problems (family support, education, wages, jobs, prisons) that are causing the problem in the first place.

You seem to assume everyone on here shares the same ideology and that we can move into a practical conversation without any more fanfare.

No, in fact, exactly the opposite -- there are deep and entrenched ideological divisions on guns. It's just that those divisions are, and that discussion is, boring. It would be even more boring if everyone did agree. And I don't mean just boring in an aesthetic sense, but that it leads nowhere, it bogs us down, it's good for polemics and maybe for fundraising, but not much else.

Half of this conversation is about what we can do to reduce the number of guns in Philadelphia. The other half is about the root causes of violence, gun or otherwise. Again, as I mentioned earlier, I'm interested in hearing thoughts about why the numbers have spiked, not over the past fifty years, but over the past ten. (Read this 1998 Inquirer article, when the homicide rate fell. Nobody could figure out why then, either.)

The picture we get most often is a combination of drug shootings and casual arguments that turn into murders. What's different now, and what's different between Philadelphia and other cities? Or was the drop in homicides at the end of the nineties the aberration, and 400 homicides a year closer to our "true" numbers, or what you would predict given these circumstances?

--Tim

Ray

For what little it is worth, I generally agree that guns should be highly regulated. Furthermore. I've always thought that the solution was to have the NRA, gun stores and gun clubs combine and operate regional hunting clubs with indoor shooting ranges. Guns would only be allowed out of the clubs for hunting season. Gun manufacturers would win since gun owners would probably buy more guns to show off to their friends and store at the gun clubs. The right to bear arms folks would win since associations could ensure that there is always a place to meet in case there is a need to other throw an oppressive government. The rest of us would win by keeping guns out of general use.

--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk

Wow. A gun culture which we don’t understand. Should I copy and paste Ray’s original post? Or the comments that I and others posted over and over again about our gun obsessed culture? I think it’s pretty useless because you don’t want to listen. Your part of that culture which believes any measure that restricts guns, is going against your god given misinterpreted right.

I’m really sorry that you would have to sacrifice a handgun, but let me ask you this: Would you sacrifice your right to the use of a handgun if it saved even one life in Philadelphia? And you think its all illegal guns? How about three year old Talib Bailey-Hankerson. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“Ty-Ty died looking down a gun barrel. He was laid to rest holding a lollipop.
Police said that on Oct. 15, about 1 p.m., the child found a registered.45-caliber pistol and shot himself in the face.”

One more time for you and please try to listen. Americans, you, love guns. We got that. We want to change your mind. Right now, an all-out ban is unconstitutional. We got that too. We think we can change that GRADUALLY so that someday Americans will overwhelming agree that handguns kill people, and getting rid of them would save lives. You say we’ll lose big-time? We might, but is that a reason to stop trying? That mentality, that we can never change a culture, is pretty UNprogressive and flat out wrong. (look up Civil rights, Woman’s rights...)

And before you state that Americans don’t want gun control, you should probably look at stats which say they overwhelmingly do. (Goss, Kristin A, Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America.) Which begs the question: why don’t we have more gun control legislation? And what can we do to change that?