The Security Blankets we Love So Much

Well, it's that time again! The time where we finally go into our inclusive side and decide that the outside world is FAR too scary and dangerous to us and we need something to protect us! You may keep getting older, but your instincts are timeless; We all want to feel safe and we all want to feel secure. When you were a child and the world grew scary and mean, you may have had a Security Blanket. For me, it was a teddy bear. I loved the bear to death, and whenever the world got tough, I'd go straight to that bear.

But then you get older. You either forget about the blankets or bears or whatever and you find new ways of solving that old problem of the burden of life coming down on you. But you ALWAYS will have a need for something, some symbol, to make you feel safe and secure, even if you know it's only an illusion.

So now your older, maybe in your 20's, 30's, or even in your 50's. You keep hearing that a bunch of "bad kids" are going around running shooting each other. When you were younger, the solution was simple; Criminals are killing each other, so get more cops out there and fight the bad guys! Simple enough! Stop the bad guys and lock them up! It was simple and it worked! But now the bad guys have changed!

In this post-9/11 world, we seem to need security blankets. Or, more accurately, we DID until the Iraq War. We, as a country, needed to know that the bad guys weren't going to wipe us all out with dirty bombs, Anthrax (Not the band!), and always having that feeling of them "dropping the other shoe", that we had another attack just waiting to happen. We instituted Terror Alerts, created a Homeland Security department, and put into effect the two worst ideas possible; The Patriot Act and EXTRA security at the Airport.

Now, Airport Security, as George Carlin will tell you, STINKS! You DO NOT joke around with airport security! But it's a massive security blanket. Why? Because we all know it is. The 9/11 hijackers were determined to create terror and die for their cause. They slipped by without a problem because we weren't paying close enough attention. The fact is, it's impossible for anyone, and in this case, The Government, to know everything and stop all the bad guys. If someone was to create 9/11 again, it's very likely we wouldn't know how to stop it. And it's unlikely they would even try planes again. Honestly, that's common sense. If someone really wanted to, guards be darned, someone could just barge anywhere and do anything. But the security measures make us feel safe and add a feeling of security. It may do something, but in reality, it's just a security blanket.

So, what the heck does this have to do with Philadelphia? I was just getting to that.

The Safe Streets Program. That alone should describe the next few paragraphs, but I will go on to prove my point.

Earlier today, I did an interview with a reporter and she asked me what my anti-crime policy was. I told her, from what I remember, the following:

What would I do about crime? Well, first, let me tell you that everyone is basically calling for more laws and more cops. Remember when the Safe Streets program started. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, saw it for what it was; a Pre-Election Year stunt! It had some real effects, I won't lie, but it didn't do anything in the long-term. It may have gotten more cops in bad areas, but where else are the criminals going to go? They're going to move to where they AREN'T, and that's the good parts and, lo and behold, that's what happened! And after they were released, the old criminals went back to where they were before.

It looked good, made us all feel a bit safer, the numbers don't lie there, but in reality, it didn't do anything long-term! Now, you have officers beefing up patrols in South West Philadelphia, and yes, it's working. But what about when they have to leave and go back to where they were? And the criminals where do you think they went? Same problems, same bad solutions! It's a great security blanket, but that's about it!

I don't think we need more anti-gun laws. I'll say it again, WE DO NOT NEED MORE ANTI-GUN LAWS! We already have a million of them on the books, and we don't need any new ones. To borrow a quote from John Kerry, I was in favor of the bill banning "Straw-Purchases".. and now I'm against it! Why? I spoke to someone who lives in PA earlier this week, and they pointed out that since the law isn't city-wide, but state-wide, it hurts the legal buyers. Now, you and I, living in Philadelphia, may not understand it, but there are people who collect guns. I believe in the U.S. Constitution, and I believe you have the right to bare arms and protect yourself. But you do not have the right to go around killing people!

I collect swords myself, so I can understand what the guy meant. Some people just like collecting things like guns and swords, and that's fine. He said the law would hurt people who bought guns legally, and I agreed. If someone wants to buy a gun illegally, they WILL do it. They don't care if they're caught or not. We already have laws stating you can't anyone else, but people still do it. What, you want to make more laws stating it's illegal to kill someone else? That's basically what anti-gun laws are doing right now, and it's not helping.

If you really want to get guns off the streets, focus on more gun buy-back programs and have a special police force dedicate to nothing more than getting illegal guns off the streets. That way, it doesn't hurt the people who use them responsibly.

What we need to do, instead, is stop relying on our security blankets. The polices and politicians of the past always dictated more laws and more cops. The problem isn't entirely gang-related now; it's angry young kids who don't have any other way of solving their anger! What they need is, in a word, HOPE. It sounds cheesy and lame, but the fact is, in a nutshell, that's what they need. Hope.

If someone is living in the ghetto, and all they see are drug dealers, pimps and hos, abandoned buildings, and their family isn't doing great, either, then they're going to see two options; 1) They turn their life around, say "The heck with this!", and do everything they can to get out of there, or 2) They go along with everything and everyone else and become the same scum they didn't want to turn into. Often, it's the later, or they start off well but the pressure of the neighborhood and society becomes too much and they go bad.

So how do you do that? How do you give someone Hope? Well, the Curfew Centers are a start. By a show of hands, how many of you knew, FOR A FACT, that there was a curfew in effect in Philadelphia. WHOA! Slow down! Out of 100 of you, that one hand in the back is hard to see! So the Curfew Centers is a step-forward. You have volunteers manning these shelters, giving the kids a place to go and just basically give them a leg-up. That's a GREAT step forward and the type of short-term and, hopefully, long-term solution to the crime problem we NEED!

But it's not even close to enough!

I'm reworking my platform now, but basically, here's some "Ideas from the Edge" that could help:

AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS:
Yeah, yeah, I know; "We don't have the money for after school programs!" Well, ask yourself this; How much does an after school program cost in comparison to keeping a kid in jail for a few days? If you give kids after school programs that they're interested in, then they have something to do.

MORE PROGRAMS:
When I was a kid, I wasn't a bad apple, but admittedly, I almost became one. You can only pick on someone for so long before they finally say enough and could very well become the very thing they hate. In grade school, they looked for something I could do to channel my feelings into, and they found it; Art and writing. If I got angry, they would let me leave class, go down to the office, and let me draw and write how I felt. Lo and behold, I became a better person! I took up art in high school and later I went to art school. I'm an illustrator now because of it!

If you give kids and teenagers the tools they need, and a smidgen of hope, they can do incredible things! So what we need are more programs in schools, such as Home Ec., Wood Shop, Auto Shop, and the like. But at the same time, we need more art programs. Heh, you never know when and where the next Stan Lee or Picasso will come from, so more art programs would be great!

APPRENTICESHIPS:
Like I said, give them tools! Give them hope! Give them a chance! I loved art, and if in high school someone said, "Hey! We've got some guy who does murals across Philadelphia and he needs some help. Since you love art so much, why don't you go with this guy and give him a hand? He'll track your hours and we'll count it as a class for you, an elective. Oh, and you can miss some school, too, namely an elective like Study Hall if you would like to do it."

That's just a rough idea, but basically, that's it; If you have a student who knows what they want to do and you have someone you know, have done a background check on, and trust, then let them take on apprentices and give the person some hope!

You know, I could just go on and on about this stuff. The point is, the security blankets we love are more laws and more cops, and the reality is that we, as a nation, as a city, have outgrown that. Yeah, we all need to feel safe, but we shouldn't just throw more money at it like that! We need to get to the underlying social problems and work there. It's like dealing with weeds and ivy; you may cut them down to next to nothing, but if the roots are still there, slowly but surly it will grow back. Thus the problem with crime in Philadelphia, and why need need to put away that old security blanket.

Oh yeah, if you want to learn more about me, just go to my site:

Gun buyback programs don't

Gun buyback programs don't work in the long term. Sorry, but, although you beginning thoughts on crime made sense, I think you are 100 percent wrong; we need laws to prevent straw dealers.

There is a reason PA is a source of illegal guns for criminals up and down the East Coast.

But...

Your still hurting the legal guys in the long run. Add onto that a lot of the cries to have this done come from Philadelphia, and you can understand why I said what I did. But this struck me the most:

There is a reason PA is a source of illegal guns for criminals up and down the East Coast.

Source?

Also, even if you don't agree with the one point, what about the rest of the post when it gets to the youth outreach programs?

No, I think you are wrong.

No, I think you are wrong. I cannot understand why one person needs more than 12 handguns a year.

I will look for the numbers. I know, for example, Mayors in both New York and Jersey have said between 80 and 90 percent of their gun crimes are committed with out of state guns, generally looking at PA. I will look for the stats tomorrow.

Cool.

When I see the numbers, I'll change my stance. I'd love to see what other states are doing right now in terms of their laws.

So in other words, you again

delete

I support one gun a month.

I support one gun a month. I own a gun and use it to hunt and shoot trap. I love doing these things. I own no handguns, however.

My uncle, on the other hand, is an avid--and legal, gun collector. He buys more thant 12 handguns a year if they are what he is looking for. He does not support one gun a month.

If you are going to have a one gun a month, you need to allow collectors the ability to apply for special licenses (with certain restrictions) so they could buy what they want. We can talk about the language, but I can totally see why legal and responsible gun owners would want 12 handguns or more a year. Plus, it will be an easier political battle.

The problem with one gun a

The problem with one gun a month is it doesn't hit the dealers who are ding the large volume illegal arms dealing.

It is just another law that goes after the little guy and not the big fishes.

I would be less bothered by one a month if it was a law to put the finishing touches on illegal arms dealing.

It may slow down illegal gun trafficking, but it doesn't really deal with the source.

The problem is money. I

The problem is money. I have seen, first hand, the effect of laws related to straw purchasing. Those who say there are already enough laws on the book are partly right. The problem is, the laws are not enforced properly due to the use of unfunded mandates from varying governments and a lack of resources dedicated to enforcing the laws.

As a result, we are in a situation where cracking down on straw purchasers through the current law is not a priority. One gun a month will slow down what is coming on the street, but it will only be as effective as enforcement.

Unfortunately, one gun a month has become a litmus test for big-city democrats. As a result, we have not advanced many new arguments on the issue. I think the tone and demeanor of people who are in favor of more gun restrictions are the reason why we do not get it. People have to remember, guns on their own--when owned legally are not contraband. By saying you can't understand why someone would want to own more than 12 hand guns a year, you trivialize an important issue for many people. Just because DanU-A can't understand why does not mean it is not a concern. A strict one gun a month that does not allow collectors to have special license will never work in Pennsylvania.

I have, over the summer, written extensively on this issue. I would say we need strong penal measures related to straw purchasers--big or small. We also need to strong penal measures for the conspirators to engage in a straw purchase. At the same time, we need to go after the shops who are selling these guns.

Collectors' Licenses

Gaetano, I'm wondering how you would structure the special licenses for gun collectors. Just at first blush, it would seem like stricter requirements, more extensive screening and stiffer penalties for people with such licenses who wind up connected with gun crimes would alleviate at least some of the concern many of us have about multiple purchases, and wouldn't represent a genuine barrier for legitimate collectors, besides the additional application fees that such licenses would probably carry. But would gun collectors, gun sellers, and on-principle 2nd amendment lobbyists accept this compromise? In other words, what kind of law could both work to reduce crime and get passed in the legislature?

Yikes. Relax, my friend. I

Yikes. Relax, my friend. I am sure there could be an exception for collectors in a bill. That is the trouble with the NRA onslaught; there is no such thing as common sense gun legislation anymore.

Well, I think the NRA says

Well, I think the NRA says the same thing about the other side as well.

My problem with recommended gun legislations is that it makes the legal buyer jump through the hoops when there could be legislation that barely affects the legal buyer and hits the illegal seller the most.

And don't even gt me started on assualt weapon bans ... hen we start having AK-47 murders in Philly, I will believe assault weapon are a threat to our every day lives.

And Gaetano is right about the 1 gun a month. Some people can't understand why you would need more than one gun a month, just as some people can't understand why someone would need 5 cars.

We need legislation that targets the actual problem while preserving the explicit rights guaranteed n PA. The band-aid stuff jut isn't going to cut it.

Really? So what legislation

Really? So what legislation has the NRA been willing to support?

You say it is a band-aid, but, the Mayor, the Governor, the Police Commissioner and other's, dont.

You're using our mayor and

You're using our mayor and police commissioner as your support? Is this because they have used such good judgment on handling crime so far?

Generally, I think one gun a

Generally, I think one gun a month is not a very creative solution to straw purchasing. The problem seems to be (1) funding of enforcement; and (2) realizing that not all guns are purchased through nefarious business people out of the trunk of a car. Many are purchased by relatives and girlfriends of ex-offenders.

We have to be willing to put these law violators in jail no matter who they are. One gun a month, while taking the punch out of who enforcement goes against, is an easy bill to point to that will slow down the number of guns entering the street. I support that. But, there are other measures that could do this better.

Hand-gun registration where fees are used for straw-purchase enforcement; mandatory reporting of lost of stolen guns. Increased civil and and criminal liability. These things need teeth too.

Hand gun registration...

Hand gun registration... Another idea that sounds reasonable, that has even less chance to pass an NRA dominated PA House.

Well, if the NRA is one

Well, if the NRA is one thing, it is persistent. But, I'd say these things would have a better chance of passage if the dialogue changed a bit.

I think that, proposed the right way, it would fare better than you think.

The NRA's various webpages

The NRA's various webpages are full of how evil gun registration is. (Along with other nefarious things like gun locks, or background checks at gun shows, or smart guns.) How exactly would it be proposed to pass?

Well, correct me if I am

Well, correct me if I am wrong--but we have background checks, don't we?

Look, I'm not saying it will be easy. But, remember who the real enemy is. The NRA isn't killing people on the streets of Philadelphia. It is criminals who are. Maybe changing the tone of the debate is the way to get things done. But, members of the gun control community are often just guilty of rehotic as members of the NRA. Just look at your comment.

One gun a month would be a good law. There are better ways than that. Let's not make it a this or that. But, we do have to recognize, we are not putting the effort into enforcement we should be either.

At gun shows, if you are not

At gun shows, if you are not a licensed federal firearms seller, then no, no background check. If you are, then a background check.

And, the Brady bill was not passed out of the dialog you speak of. It was passed because Reagan's press secretary was shot in the Hinkley assassination attempt of Reagan, and he and his wife went hard after the gun lobby for years. Including, for example, as Republicans, giving impassioned speeches to the Democratic Convention, and becoming the head of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. The NRA fought them every step of the way. It was passed only after Clinton took over the White House, and Democrats had control of both Chambers of Congress.

No, talking nice to the NRA will not get us very far. How do we know that, besides seeing how they operate all over the Country? Well, right here, then-Mayor Rendell romanced the NRA for years. Where did that get us?

My rhetoric on guns is the same as it always is. I understand people collect them, I understand people hunt with them, and I understand that some people feel like they generally need to have them. I also understand the amount of money and pressure that the NRA floods into the political process to influence votes. (In fact, if I recall correctly, the NRA, in the run up to 2000, was predicting that their efforts in PA would be the difference to deliver the State to Bush.) And I understand that basically their entire premise is that any gun control bill is a bad one. If I am missing some laws that they championed, please let me know.

Did you know that most of

Did you know that the vast majority guns used in crimes (in Philadelphia and other major cities), particularly homicides, come from just a handful of gun shops that are well known to the ATF--not gun shows? Moreover, most guns are purchased with a NCIS background check and not at gun shows.

We are not talking about the Brady Bill, Dan, we are talking about new, state legislation. I'm not talking about playing nice with the NRA, but changing the dialogue from one were people say things like, I have no idea why people need _ handguns a ___; or other statements that miss the mark entirely. You have to convince a lot of people in the middle. That type of rhetoric will not do it short of another Brady-style tragedy.

I bring up the Brady Bill

I bring up the Brady Bill because it was the last piece of major legislation that was passed in the Country. Locally, I guess, Philadelphia's assault weapons ban passed, and then promptly was overturned and preempted. Because, hey, the NRA might not be able to influence Philly City Council, but it can and does dominate the State legislature.

We cannot talk about gun control in some vacuum- this is the environment we have, where legislators took away the right of Philadelphia's elected officials (a common theme) to self regulate. According to IssuesPA, 78 percent of Philadelphians think gun control is more important than more lax laws, and 62 percent of the suburbs do, as well. In the state, it is basically even (49 for more control versus 47 for greater emphasis on rights to own guns). That is why, I would be willing to bet you just about anything, a couple of things would poll overwhelmingly well with the middle you describe- first, letting Philly regulate its own gun laws. And, common sense legislation, like one handgun a month.

Yet, despite a whole array of potential solutions, in a State where at minimum, at least half favor more restrictive gun laws, we have some of the most lax laws in the Nation. That is why I don't see the solution as talking to the middle. If the solution were talking to the middle, we would already have sensible laws. We need to figure out how to effectively take on the NRA.

And, no, I don't think another tragedy really will solve anything either. Why? Because the Brady Bill passed 12 years after he was shot, after years of hard lobbying, and again, from the Democrats taking control of Congress and the White House at the same time. It was not the tragedy itself, it was that it spurred years of hard work by the Brady's that the Democrats could put into action. After the law passed, Columbine happened, the Country was shocked, and Clinton tried for more, and got basically nothing.

You didn't answer my

You didn't answer my question re gun shows versus gun shops.

Aside from that oversight, how about this. Lobby for more funding for local police departments and District Attorney's offices to go after straw purchasers. Let's show through arrest and prosecution of gun shop owners and private citizens that this is a problem.

Or, let's make this THE defining issue in the next Attorney General election--and hope that person comes from Philly or this Metropolitan area.

Despite that number of people who support more restrictions, there is no statewide effort to capitalize on that sentiment. And, to the extent there is, it focuses too much on Philadelphia.

Personally, I think that Philly being able to have its own restrictions is a nice gesture and something I would/could support, I do no think it will be as helpful as it could be.

I am glad you could support

I am glad you could support Philadelphia being able to govern... Philadelphia.

Anyway, I don't disagree that more funding for prosecution would not be good. But, again, Mayor Rendell worked with the NRA to push for more enforcement and education, as well, and I don't think it accomplished a ton. Still, it is a good idea, but, is one piece of a puzzle that should include sensible gun laws.

As far as the vast majority of crimes being from guns from gun shops. What is your point? That we should have more restrictive laws over gun shops? I agree. Glad we cleared that up.

The problem, as I understand it, is that saying we should have more enforcement of straw dealers doesn't deal with how hard it is to do actually go after them- and especially to go after the source: the gun shops where they are coming from. You have a one gun a month law, with an exception for Christmas or a certified collector or something, then it becomes much easier to actually follow through on that enforcement.

First, I don't appreciate

First, I don't appreciate the rhetoric on the issue--of course I support Philadelphia being able to govern . . . Philadelphia. The problem is whether it will be helpful. There are many well reasoned and well meaning people who believe that it will not be. Considering the geography of gun purchases, I agree.

Second, your mention of gun shows characterizes the issue of straw purchasers in a way that isn't true. That was my point. The vast majority of straw-purchased guns do not come from gun shows. They come from gun shops. Gun shops require NCIS background checks.

Last, I agree with one gun a month. I don't know where that is not clear. But, one of the main arguments of NRA folks is that the laws on the books already aren't being enforced. And, it is my understanding that it is not all that difficult to go after these shops--but a lack of resources to dedicate to the task at hand. If we can prove our point that new legislation is needed through actual enforcement, I think it will go a long way to better gun legislation. A good, Philadelphia Attorney General could change this!

Again, I think it is important to remember, the enemy in this debate (to me) are the people using guns illegally. The NRA, while obstructionist related to what you and I consider reasonable regulation, is not killing 400 people a year in Philadelphia.

Well, at least I agree with you more on this one

than I usually do, Gaetano. But I'm afraid that's not saying a whole lot.

Yes, I do agree that advocates of gun legislation should be more careful with their language.

Yes, it would be better if instead of saying "How could anyone legitimately want more than one gun per month." they said "How could anyone legitimately want more than one gun per month, well, that is outside of the relatively few collectors there are out there, and yes, we should make exceptions for them as long as those execeptions are carefully regulated." But seriously, how many people do you think are really turned against one gun per month by the difference in those statements?

Are you realy comparing that lack of "nuanced" rhetoric on one side to the millions? billions? that the NRA spends on influencing our legislators on the other? How many collectors do you think there are?

Here's what I would guess: I would guess that 90 out of every 100 Philadelphians that aren't criminals would have no problem whatsoever with a one gun per month limit. And nine out of those 10 that would object would object to any form of gun control legislation whatsoever. Maybe 1 in 100 Philadelphians would object because it would inhibit their ability to collect guns - if that many.

Nut just because people

Nut just because people agree with it, it doesn't mean it really is the correct solution.

I would guess the majority of Philadelphians would probably vote to ban guns totally in the City. It doesn't mean it is correct.

I think the gist of Gaetano's point is that, sure one gun a month might help some, but why not concentrate on real solutions instead that would significantly impact the straw dealers.

I believe with laws, the correct path is to have legislation that impacts the bad guys more than the good guys. A lot of proposed gun legislation makes the good guys jump through hoops so as to minimally impact the bad guys.

I would think you would have a lot more legislative support for laws that overwhelmingly target the bad guys without affecting the good guys.

Was that a typo

or are you calling me a "nut?"

I agree that there should be an array policies for dealing with the "straw" problem - but one gun a month is one piece, and it has symbolic meaning as well as substance. In and of itself it would have a limited impact - but as a part of something more comprehensive it would help.

But I think that focusing on the rhetoric of the anti-gun activists, or on the limited benefit of a one gun policy, misses the point. The problem is the power of the NRA -- which is rooted to some degree in the passion of gun-owners, but that opposition is magnified many times over by the money of the gun manufacturing and distrubution industries.

That is why the one gun policy is symbolic. The reason why it hasn't passed isn't because it isn't efficacious enough or because how it would impact collectors. The rhetoric isn't the problem. The reason why it hasn't passed is because the forces aligned against it are determined to not allow any laws that might have a negative impact on those industries.

In that sense, anti-gun violence activists' should craft their rhetoric so as to not help enable the NRA to marshall opposition - but let's be clear about where the real problem is. Less than perfectly effective rhetoric is a very small percentage of the problem.

Yes, typo. Was supposed to

Yes, typo. Was supposed to be "But just ..."

The rhetoric is important because the rhetoric is what galvanizes people for and against.

If you push a bill that attacks people's rights to bear arms, those people will fight it. If you push a bill that attacks illegal dealing and doesn't affect people's ability to buy weapons, you'll peel away the more reasonable people and can market it a whole heck of a lot better. People only tend to care when their lifestyle is affect. If their lifestyle isn't, only idealists usually take up the flag.

So, if you can push a bill that says "we are going after the illegal gun dealers in a way that will have ZERO affect on your ability to procure weapons" it is going to be hard for the average gun user to get worked up about it. Plus, then the ones that do can be painted as completely unreasonable and alienate them amongst their peers and fellow residents.

Like I said to Gaetano, I

Like I said to Gaetano, I think you are really underestimating what the NRA does, how they do it, and the power that they have. No matter what the bill, the NRA itself screams it is a slippery slope and goes to war.

I am not underestimating the

I am not underestimating the NRA, there power and/or resources. I'm stating nothing but fact above. Review my posts again and tell where where I santify the NRA. You will not find it.

Or, more pointedly, I don't think Raider and I were born yesterday. I have spent a considerable amount of time with this issue and consider myself a pretty thoughtful guy. Just because we disagree does not, automatically, mean I am incorrect. It means we disagree.

First, no, it means you are

First, no, it means you are incorrect. Ask any of my ex-girlfriends.

Second, the reason I am talking about that is because I just think the rhetoric thing is false. Do some people go over the top? Sure. But, you said you thought if we changed the tone we could get things done here, and, I do think that based on the last 30 years of gun laws (or lack thereof) in this State and in this Country, that is just demonstrably not true.

Combustion

Sometimes, I'm amazed that the U-A brothers do not spontaneously combust.

I think a change of tone, direct dialogue, etc., would significantly help things. I also said that making this not just a Philadelphia issue is critical too. But, we are focusing on 1 of maybe 6 things I said.

I know and that is why I

I know and that is why I said you need to attack it on a front where you have a chance to not get the general membership worked up in a fervor.

Has there been any attempt at legislation where there is no restriction on the end user's rights to gauge a response?

DEII, why do you take one

DEII, why do you take one thing I say and aggrandize it so that it subsumes everything else I say?

I'll agree, rhetoric is a small portion of the problem. And, it never was a large part of the solution I offered. But, the rhetoric is an indication of intolerance than it is reason. I guess that is my point. People must recognize, for many, this is a cultural issue. Having been outside of Philadelphia on many occassions with gun owners, hunters, etc., I can honestly say the cultural differences between Philadelphia and, say, Bradford county are real and aren't going anywhere.

I do agree Gaetano,

that the "cultural" issues are relevant - and that poor strategic choices regarding the rhetoric exacerbate the problem. Any effective strategy must take into account how rhetoric should be shaped so as to not make things worse, and to not play into the hands of people who want to amplify divisions to the end of preventing change. I really do agree with you there.

Sorry I misinterpreted your perspective. When I read you saying (I'm paraphrasing here) that the NRA doesn't kill people, people kill people, I did kind of go into knee-jerk mode.

No sweat.

I'm glad we are agreeing.

Someone can correct me if I

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the registration issue was because it is currently illegal to retain that information. Which, inherently makes it more difficult because now you are actually speaking about legislation to remove a law that grants privacy. You have to touch on two issues people are protective about.

Huh?

Adam writes:

And don't even gt me started on assualt weapon bans ... hen we start having AK-47 murders in Philly, I will believe assault weapon are a threat to our every day lives.

I don't know, maybe it's just me -- but I bet that we'd have a lot more AK-47 murders in Philly if we didn't have assault weapon bans. The whole point is that weapons which are obtainable legally are being used illegally. It's not that Philadelphia drug dealers only love handguns. I think there could be strong market demand for military weapons, especially for execution killings. And when the police take doors or execute warrants, they will be a lot safer if the guys at the other end are carrying handguns or even shotguns rather than a Kalashnikov rifle.

And that is possible. I am

And that is possible. I am making the assumption that the stealth factor is what makes handguns more desirable.

But wither way, my point is that I am not asking to make them more accessible. I just think further concentration on them is a distraction.

Um, notice legal rifles and

Um, notice legal rifles and shotguns are not used for 97% of the shootings in Philadelphia. Handguns are king for street crime because they can be hidden on the body and, say, behind a car tire. You can't do that with an A-K.

To Clarify/Reiterate

I understand the logic of handguns for street crime. Again, I'm worried about specific instances where a violent criminal, especially a drug dealer, would conceivably have need for an assault weapon, where concealment isn't really as big of a factor. This would include drive-by or execution shootings, and as a weapon-of-last-resort if the police were to try to take you at your house (aka the "Scarface" scenario).

In addition to organized crime, I think you also have to worry about assault rifles being used in bank robberies, by kidnappers, or kooks -- any situation where hostages could be taken. And mostly, I'm thinking about the safety of police officers, and their ability to bring criminals down who don't want to be caught. The cops do not want assault weapons on the street.

I agree. They shouldn't be

I agree. They shouldn't be on the streets of Philadelphia.

I just don't think we will have a marked increase in their use in homicide. But, to protect officers (and the public at large), absolutely.

Going after straw dealers

Going after straw dealers doesn't hurt legal buyers.

Yes

Yes it does. I explained why. Do you have any particular reason why it doesn't?

Well, let me correct my

Well, let me correct my statement. Correctly going after straw sellers does nto harm legal owners.

It isn't even about one gun a month.

Real legislation is to crack down on the gun owners and sellers that sell their weapons illegaly and then when they are traced back to them, they claim they were "stolen".

Make it mandatory that a stolen firearms have to be reported within one week. If more than one incidents happen in a year, they get fined, license revoked or something else.

That will affect dealers that sell off large amounts of weapons and report them stolen. It also affects the situations where Suzie Q is buying a weapon for her boyfriend Joe Smith. If he then takes the gun and commits a crme with it, hold her responsible as well, ESPECIALLY if he is an ex-con. If he commits a crime with a gun she bought and you can prove she was aware it was illegal for him to own a gun, you charge her with arms dealing. You do that with any weapon.

I have no problem with people legally owning weapons. But if you do, you are responsible for their use, whether by you or someone else. You better be damn well aware of who you let use a weapon purchased in your name.

Also, increase sting operations of dealers.

You do that stuff and nothing changes for legal buyers that they shouldn't have been careful about already.

Wow, Nice!

Wow, excellent post! I think that one has to go into my platform, actually!

Thanks!

Will write policy for money.

Will write policy for money. ;)

deleted

deleted

Some more notes...

PRO 1
By limiting purchasers to one gun a month, you can keep people from accumulating vast arsenals of weapons.

CON 2
This system that has already been shown to not work because criminals use groups of people, such as the girl friends of gang members, to make the quantity of purchases they need.

CON 3
A multiple purchase form can help show to authorities when someone is buying an abnormal amount of guns. This way the appropriate action can be taken and an innocent person who simply wants to buy multiple guns wont be restricted.

One Gun A Month Debate

Seems to make sense to me.

Out of curiosity....

What does everyone think about the REST of the post? You know, the good 99% that doesn't deal with the One-Gun-A-Month law, like the programs for kids to stop the rising murder rate? That.. that doing anything for you?

Well, I think no one else is

Well, I think no one else is really talking about the after-school stuff because it is nothing new. Everyone pretty much tries to increase funding for after school programs and activities to keep kids occupied.

There is nothing to comment on.

That Stinks

That really does stink, because that's exactly what they need to get them off the streets! Honestly, give kids something to do that's constructive and give them hope, and your guaranteed a lowered murder rate!

Well, I always thought the

Well, I always thought the "give kids stuff to do" argument was always lame. I grew up with cornfield in my backyard. You know what we did? We rode bikes, played outside or hung out in the mall or other stuff.

I didn't grow up in a City and I never had a lack of things to do.

I personally think a lot of that discussion is just people trying to blame the problem on "society".

So, I think after school activities are good for kids, but I don't really think it is really the solution.

I think the largest benefit of after school activities is that it gives a kids a place to go when they don't have parents at home yet because of work. Sort of a post-school hours day care.

In general

Again, I'm not totally sure what you're going for. People are focusing on the part about anti-gun legislation because it's the most clear (and surprising) argument. I don't agree with it at all.

---
http://benwaxman.com

My Main thing...

The main point was that more anti-gun laws and more cops isn't going to solve the crime rate and the murder problem, and that those promises and ideas are nothing more than Security Blankets. The reality to solving the problem lies in trying to get to the root of the problem, which is the fact that teenagers and kids in Philadelphia need some support, some hope, and a reason to try and achieve.

Like I have said before--and

Like I have said before--and to some extent you are correct--crime strategy cannot be one dimension. Those focused on root problems and long term solutions ignore the need for security now. The same with those who believe increased enforcement is the only solution. Short, medium and long term policies in concert is, in my opinion, a correct crime fighting strategy.

Agreed!

I completely agree! I'm not saying that my proposal is it, but I am saying we do need more. The Curfew Centers are working now where they are, and I think they're great. The idea of hiring more police on the street is also great, but I think we need to focus on cleaning up and perfecting the police force we already have. Also, the patrol dedicated to just getting illegal guns off the street is another great solution that works immediately, mid-term, and long term.

Again

I don't think you'll find a lot of disagreement among any of the candidates about that particular point.

The question is, how?
---
http://benwaxman.com

FYI: free talk on gun control and the crime wave

Talk: Is Gun Control the Answer to Philadelphia's Homicide Wave?

Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Time: 4:30 p.m.
Location: Penn Law School, entrance on Sansom St between 34th and 36th Streets, Room Pepper 100

JAMES B. JACOBS is Warren E. Burger Professor of Law at NYU School of Law. A lawyer/sociologist, Jacobs is the Director of NYU’s Center for Research in Crime and Justice and teaches criminal law, criminal procedure, federal criminal law, and juvenile justice. Jacobs has published fourteen books and more than 100 articles on such topics as prisons and imprisonment, drunk driving, corruption and its control, hate crime, drug testing, regulation of weaponry, and organized crime. In 2002, he published CAN GUN CONTROL WORK? (Oxford University Press).

(I had no idea where in the discussion to stick this, so here you go at the bottom.)
Jennifer

How Many Guns Does It Take ?????

I have seen many collections in my day. It baffles me to think that a person just cause you have the right to bear arms need a arsenal, then call it a collection. Im not telling a person what they can or can't have but guns are a different issue. How many guns does one man truely need. Whats the limit before your called a militia, 20, 30, 14? Whether its one gun a month or two, how many guns does one mortal man need to feel happy? You can't shoot all of these guns if you wanted to, so whats the purpose. Whats the purpose of needing a gun in Philadelphia? Are you placed in situations that a gun is needed? Have we forgotten how to settle differences without leading to the Wild Wild West? I have never been in a situation where I needed a gun , but since I have that Constitutional right should I really own 13 guns just for GP?

It scares the hell out of me knowing that walking among the streets or general public there are people that are carrying firearms in broad daylight because they have a licence to carry.
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog

Don't Lie For The Other Guy

One of the most effective laws for stopping straw purchasers is a Federally funded program called "Don't Lie For The Other Guy". It's primarily an education program. Many straw purchasers are enticed into buying a gun for someone else who isn't eligible to otherwise make said purchase, through a simple profit motive. Of those purchases, many of those folks aren't even aware that they are violating the law. The education process makes potential purchasers aware that what they are doing is illegal and potentially makes them liable for any of the crimes committed with the illegally purchased firearm. I've heard that the Bob Brady Campaign is working on bringing this program to Philadelphia.

On another point, I believe that Mr Williams is very concerned that there are people walking around legally carrying concealed firearms. I'm much more concerned that people are walking around illegaaly carrying concealed firearms. It's generally known that most homicides are committed by convicted felons (who are not legally allowed to purchase or own firearms). Further, most murders occur when there is a lack of respect beteen victim and assailant. Unfortunately, the police don't appear to be as committed to going after violent criminals as I would prefer.

I used to consult in Washington, DC SE (the smallest quadrant, but with more murders than the other three quadrants combined). I also did business in Suitland, MD (which is immediately adjacent to Anacostia (Wash, SE)). The economic and racial strata is very similar between the two places, but the murder rate is vastly different. I attribute the difference to strict gun control in Anacostia (where the victims are less likely to possess a firearm) vs. a greater likelyhood that the average citizen, in Suitland, MD is legally allowed to carry. When states go to a "shall issue" concealed carry, violent crime goes down (5% for aggravated assault to 8% for rapes). On the other hand, Burglary and Auto Theft do go up. This is a trade I'm willing to make.

Those legally enabled

Those legally enabled through permits to carry concealed weapons are not the people killing 400 or so Philadelphians a year.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content