Before I go any further, let me start by applauding Congressman Brady for putting together a meeting regarding gun violence. Regardless of his political motivations, it was needed and long overdue. Thank you Congressman. Okay, not onto the topic at hand.
In the article found
Based upon comments made by Sen. Fumo, however, it is hard to believe that any progress was made at all. Senator Fumo reportedly said, “"Let us not kid ourselves that if we pass one gun a month, this'll go away . . . The problem is the illegal use of guns." Really? You mean to tell me there is a problem with the illegal use of guns in this city. Holy crap! Where have I been?
Seriously, there are three problems with Fumo’s statement. First, we already know guns are being used illegally. What we don’t know is what to do. That is why we look to people like him, those we elect.
Second, the statement contains a dismissive attitude towards one gun a month, which, he is correct, will not solve all our issues, but it is a good step. Why? Because it will help to reduce or eliminate straw purchasing. After all, if we are trying to stop the illegal use of guns, shouldn’t we be looking to stop the illegal gun trade, criminals getting guns and irresponsible use of the right Fumo and Perzel are so intent on protecting. Of course. It would seem logical to start with a system that stops people from buying guns through legal means and selling them on the streets of Philadelphia.
Just because we do not know it will work, does that mean we shouldn’t try. Of course not. No one knew whether “New Deal” or the “Civil Rights Act of 1964” would be effective, but they were. I guess what I am saying; aren’t the children and citizens of Philadelphia worth a shot. I think so.
Third, Fumo’s statement is unoriginal. One gun a month is something we should try. But, if we do not get that there are other things we can do that may be effective. In an earlier post, “What do you get when . . . A Task Force,” I showed potential alternatives to one gun a month. In summary they were; (1) the regulation of junk handguns and safety standards; (2) the registration of handguns with law enforcement; and (3) the imposition of strict civil and criminal liability for unregistered secondary sales.
Why aren’t ideas like this in the public domain? Well, some are. Commissioner Johnson has put forward his idea regarding parolees, which is decent. Some disagree, but it’s an idea that we haven’t heard one hundred times before, which is good. So, I guess what I am getting at is, people in Fumo’s position should not dismiss good ideas or say they would not work, unless, of course they actually know. Further, unless elected representatives have new thoughts, crushing old ones probably isn’t a great idea. Something other than puffery is needed to solve this problem. It needs to be a holistic approach that includes the provision of opportunity, as well as, the elimination of criminals getting handguns.
This is not Senator Fumo problem, but a political problem that spans branches and levels. We should expect cutting edge solutions to difficult problems. Or, in the alternative, we should expect our leaders to try. The summer will be over in a month and surely the murder rate will slow, like it always does. Odds are we will top 400 murders, but what about next summer or next year? Maybe then Vince and Perzel will have answers. Until then, some more Philly kids will die. I bet they don’t have these problems in Jupiter Island, Florida.
I sort of respect Fumo on this
Re: One gun a month.
I think in Fumo's calculus it might be a questions of "how much effort/capital do we have to spend to get this" versus "how much good it will do."
I have a feeling he thinks it will be a whole ton of work to make it happen and will yield very little. The work of a guy like Fumo is not cost free. If he works on one-gun-a-month he's not working on something else, and the something else could potentially do more, more certainly.
I have to say, I find it pretty hard to get excited about one-gun-per-month. It sounds like there is already an oversupply of guns. Which means that if the supply were cut down a little, the price would go up and just create an incentive for street gun sales of 2nd Hand guns. I don't see it making any difference at all. If I was Fumo, I probably wouldn't work on it either.
I come from gun country. I am not terrified of guns or mystified by them. Unlike most of my friends, I did not take Hunter/Gun Safety classes growing up, but everyone I know did.
The best solutions are usually counter-intuitive. I wish more young people had access to gun safety classes and programs. I know what the typical urban liberal thinks of this idea: TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO USE GUNS? OH MY GOD!!!
Well, that's what the nutbag conservatives say about Sex Ed, too, but we know that Sex Ed is better than No-Sex Ed, right?
Teach kids about guns. Dispel the mysticism around them. I can tell you from my experience growing up in a rough and tumble country where men vied to be known as the best barfighter in the land - gun classes won't increase gun violence and they will decrease gun accidents. I actually think it would go further than that and decrease the mystique of guns overall, and, therefore, the violence.
---
BradyDale OnLine
I sort of agree, teaching peo
I sort of agree, teaching people about guns is a good way to go. But, I think that more for their own safety than not. I can, have and always will shoot and probably hunt. I have a great appreciation for guns, particularly shot guns. I hope my children will learn how to shoot, and/or at least know enough about guns to know what to do with one.
I do not know, however, if teaching kids about guns will stop them from eventually using them for harm. They seem like two different inquiries. They may be related, and not knowing shouldn't stop us from trying.
I strongly disagree
First, Fumo has always been cozy with the NRA. He generally opposes any sort of gun control. That is a lot different than saying he wouldn't expend a lot of energy on it- no, generally, he directly opposes it.
Second, gun safety training is not the answer. The 220 or gun deaths this year are overhwhelminlgy from purposeful gunfire, be it in a robbery, a fight, or crossfire. Teaching someone how to correctly use the safety on their gun would never stop that. Teaching people that guns can kill someone wouldn't stop that either, because generally, that is the exact reason people are using them.
I understand why people want to hunt, and although I think it is a bad idea, I would never tell someone they cannot buy a gun if they perceive it to increase their public safety. I cannot understand, however, how preventing people from flooding Philly with illegal handguns is a bad thing.
Not quite my point
Dan,
I'm going to claim Midwestern Privilege here. My guess I'm the rare bird on this forum that has shot an AK47. I know what living in an open gun culture is like, and it really is not a scary place at all.
I'm not saying people don't know where their safeties are, I'm saying that guns are over-mystified. Familiarity at a young age can undermine the mysticism. And the mysticism begets the violence, the feeling of power in owning a gun, the lust for a gun.
Widespread gun familiarity is a psychological approach. Yes, people know what guns can do, but I think that if respect for guns were inculcated early people would less readily resort to them/want them/get turned on by using them.
It could be a reach and - like i said, it's counter-intuitive, but the best solutions usually are. It's got a better shot than Prohibition. When's the last time Prohibitions worked? On anything? Seriously, name a time.
Take drinking. We all know the wrong way to prevent widespread alcoholism is to hide kids from booze. It mystifies it. Countries where kids drink earlier have less alcoholism, right?
Campus researchers have found that the best way to undermine excessive drinking is not to attack the drinking itself but to educate students on the fact that while over-indulgence makes news, most kids are moderate to light drinkers.
Similarly, hiding guns away turns them not into just an object or tool, but a totem.
I guarantee you that widespread gun safety work would hurt nothing. I'm also saying that I know what it looks like to live around lots and lots of guns, around men inclined to violence, and I was never worried a gun fight would break out.
And, just to be clear, I'm not AGAINST one gun a month; I just don't think it's worth all the effort it would take to pass.
---
BradyDale OnLine
Mama said the pistol is the devil's right hand
Check out the first hour of Radio Times from Thursday, August 3rd to see how your Midwestern theory of gun lust stacks up against the views of people who study the issue and work to reduce violence in Philadelphia. The panelists were Elijah Anderson, Penn sociologist and David Fattah Sr of the House of UMOJA.
In the spirit of new ideas
The real player here doesn't work, so I couldn't listen to the link.
I also grew up in gun country, and think Brady could be on to something here. The gun culture I grew up in and the gun culture I now live in are completely different. To get a hunting license in PA, one must complete a hunter's safety course, essentially a protracted gun safety course. The majority of kids where I grew up do this at their first possible opportunity: their eleventh birthday.
In the hunting blind, on the rifle range, and on the skeet range, our fathers and mentors taught us that the ability to kill a living thing is the GREATEST responsibility there is. As a kid I remember when my cousin pointed his unloaded pellet gun at me and his father boxed his ears and yelled for over 20 minutes.
The doctrine of gun safety acknowledges the power conveyed in gun ownership. However, it works to downplay the glamorization of guns, making it a very serious issue.
40% of the shootings thus far this year are a direct result of arguments. Arguments? Police think some related to drug trafficking are also due to arguments. Teaching kids from a young age that gun ownership is not to be glamorized but respected could have an impact on the frivolous lust for guns that consumes youth today.
I do not know if it would work, but its a new idea, and its worth consideration.
Growing up, we got into arguments. When it got heated, I'm not too proud to admit I have won and lost by fist fight. We never let it come to guns, we respect what they can do too much for that.
it’s hard out there in gun country
This is an MP3 to Radio Times from Thursday, August 3rd or
here is the web page for Radio Times .
Seriously listen to the program it is very interesting and informative.
I think what I would say to you and Brady regarding this new idea is that in general I find my personal experience is as much a potential handicap as it is an asset in understanding the world. So it is important to look to people who have studied a particular issue and or experienced it directly not to determine my view but to better inform it. Which is long and more polite way of saying I’m not sure the Andy Griffith narrative you and Brady are telling fits Philadelphia.
it's true. it's true.
Mark, I'll check it out. It's true. Philadelphia might be quite different. I guess my point is that I have so little faith in Prohibition that I don't even want to be bothered with it.
In DC, where owning any gun has a mandatory minimum sentence, the police did a gun buyback (this was when I lived there, so probably 2001, maybe?) where anyone could bring in any gun and get a bunch of money for it. All guns were the same. $500, I think.
They netted a lot of guns.
I mean, a lot. The pictures were unbelievable. Women, young and old. Kids. Thugs. All sorts of people showed up with all sorts of guns. Undoubtedly, this arsenal was just the extra guns everyone thought they could spare or the guns of reformed people just waiting to figure out what to do with them (which I think they'd sell on the street when 1-a-month comes in).
I continue to maintain that gun safety courses would do no harm, at the very, very least.
---
BradyDale OnLine
This may be controversial,
This may be controversial, but the underlying tone of what I am hearing from these two well thought-out ideas is not so much gun safety, but good adult-child relationships. Many of our criminals do not come from loving homes or from places where people can or will take the time to teach them about being a man or woman and the responsibilities related thereto. So, whether it is gun safety or swimming lessons, it is really about role models.
I am not a "family values" person. But, having grown up in a good, strong family, I consider myself very lucky. But, whether you think it takes a family or a village, it takes something to raise children right. If we want to stop crime, we have to start making children understand responsibility and expectation. While opportunities aren't always equal, and Philadelphia could use many improvements in job creation and education, opportunity is out there. The problem is, it is not coming to these kids and/or they are not going to it. Either way, the chances are when it hits, few can/will or are able to step up.
I am not disillusioned into thinking we can eradicate all crime. But, if we took away a criminal's guns, they are automatically less dangerous. At the same time, if we instilled pride and responsibility in our young men and women, we can only imagine what could be accomplished. See, this is, necessarily a problem where the solution is multi-faceted.