Part of the reason, Gerry, is that Philadelphia is a s--thole that is populated by people who are incapable of learning from the past, as seems to be the norm in urban places. They put in politicians who run the city into the ground. You would think people would have learned by now *not* to pick such idiots, but they do time and again - Rendell, Street, now Nutter. All too busy making excuses, not on fixing the city's problems. Like in New York, these mayors would rather blame guns and gun manufacturers than, say, ratchet up sentencing, allowing profile-based traffic stops, keeping Section 8 in perfectly good neighborhoods, etc., as well as the fact that people (i.e. those who can afford to) are leaving the city in droves because of all these problems. BTW, Australia, along with England, have lead the industrialized world in violent and total crime, since they enacted their gun bans in the mid-90's. You're right, they must be doing something right - if you're a criminal.
Well, you both make valid points, however, England and Wales had 765 murders over in 2005 and 2006 years combined; they crime rate may have gone up, but they're still a very distant second. Philly alone will exceed that in just one year. http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp I certainly agree with much of what you're saying though; Philly is indeed a shi***** but its a relatively recent phenomenon (last twenty years or so). I also agree with aabbccdd that much has to do with drugs; I'm not sure about the 99% figure though; coffee, cigarettes and a roof over your head has something to do with it; we know throughout history that poverty and crime are like fleas on a dog; the two are inseperable. I certainly agree with you about Street and quite likely nutter (though his plans for the sweeping changes in the broadening of police authority is so stringent that it would be ruled unconstitutional in even the most redneck states ... though I do applaud them if they can ever come to fruition.) I disagree about Rendell though; crime dropped quite a lot as did the city debt (the unions hated him and still do though) but crime in general and murder in particular hit the roof harder than ever when Street came in. But back to my original point, I don't think the gun lobby did themselves any favors by what they did in VA; defending (let alone encouraging) businesses who knowingly sold arms to felons and knowing their weapons were for illegal sales in the north is indefensable...and, as the courts are deciding, makes them felons too. To be fair though; Pa didn't exactly fare any better; a gun shop in delaware county (could have been Montgomery but I don't think so)was busted for selling guns to criminals and were responsible for at least 60 of last years murders in Philly... but at least no one is throwing parties to celebrate! I still think we should only allow the weapons made legal at the time the second amendment was signed!
Just like we should only allow speech in the forms that were available when the First Amendment was signed ... that will take care of a HUGE amount of society's problems. As far as "the gun lobby" goes, I don't think anyone will care except those who already hate the big bad gun lobby already. Most of the rural folk like guns, and many urban dwellers don't see a couple guns being given away in VA as a threat compared to the guns being given away on the corner of their street. The idea was to send a message to Bloomberg who sent private investigators into gun shops to knowingly and willfully break the law anyway. I don't know much about the Delco case, but I do know that gun dealers aren't psychics and cannot prevent straw purchases; it's one thing if they're not doing the mandated background checks, but another if somebody buys a gun claiming it's for them and then passes it off to somebody else. In theory, though, the paper trail should end with the purchaser and they would be prosecuted, but the fact that it doesn't happen that way shows the futility of gun registration and gun laws in general. It's time we learn from all this and, if anything, go the other way and take lessons of Switzerland - which has mandatory gun ownership and one of the lowest crime rates in the industrialized world.
@Dunker: You have in a sense made one of my point in part. Many of us, as part of our national pride love to think we have the highest standard of living in the world when, in fact, we place number six. Canada and the scandinavian countries and one Islamic country (Quatar (sp) I think.)Poverty leads to crime. This was not the case in Philly twenty five years ago although, like any big city, crime was there but no where near as bad but the jobs went with the continued urban sprawl. As I said earlier in this thread, I'm actually quite on the fence in this matter; I'm not from Philadelphia but rather grew up in rural quebec and rural new england and didn't move to Philly until I was 37 and it pains me to say that was a long time ago LOL! The thing is, I sat firmly on yours and nephs side of the fence until then. I was nothing short of shocked when I moved to Philly...it was like I moved to a third world country for my job. Just as I had no idea of how bad things really are until I became a social worker, so too does the american public have no idea as well and the expansion of the suburbs is something no mayor can do anything about. Philly is still a hub of finance but unlike the other big cities, it was easier to move to the burbs because we're just small enough to make it easy. The consequence is that Philly pays out huge amounts of revenue just catering to the needs of two million commuters who use up city resources but don't pay taxes here. Boston has the same problem even though their poverty is far lower than ours ... their saving grace is that its a capital city. Income from Philadelphia and to a lesser degree Pittsburgh has paid for damned near all of PAs infrastructure; large cities are a cash cow if maintained and invested in but when you ignore them, they become a huge liability...this is true also of any large business enterprise. Ignore the cities and it costs EVERYONE, not just the city populace. Invest in the large cities like many European countries do and you have millions contributing to the tax base rather than drawing from it. Working in an unemployment office, I can tell you with certainty that most of them WANT to work. The thirty thousand or so jobs we've lost to illegal immigration have also contributed hugely to the problem but that is something I won't comment on save to say that its probably the only issue on which city people side with arch conservatives. Its cost us more dearly than most can know. By virtue of its size and population, a city is a great place to hide. Dunker, I work in the largest job center in PA...not a welfare office, but an unemployment office. We get just over sixteen thousand people a month looking for work. I'm damned glad I work with education and training and not job placement assistance! So long as the feds keep subsidizing the burbs and the farms at the growing expense of the cities, this country is aiming at a huge financial and social crisis.
Rizzo was the only one that took care of bussiness in Philly, after him philly went down fast and still going, what a shame, it was a great place at one time.
@ Fredburn...Rizzo wasn't brought down by a liberal press, he was brought down by his own police officers who turned him in for ordering people framed, ordered people beaten up to keep them from testifying. ...in the Phila Police Academy, cadets are made to watch a movie entitled "The Thin Blue Lie" (not "The Thin Blue Line). Because of Rizzo and the police, a lot of people were "set up" (including a couple of retarded kids) so they could improve their numbers and even cover up activities of the police. As a consequence, they had to release a lot of dangerous people who were indeed guilty. I don't know where you were at the time but it was national news for months and months ... the mayor's and police dept antics were uncovered by a writer for the Inquirer who won the Pulitzer prize for it but it was the police officers themselves who wanted a clean dept that showed the press where to look. Just for the hell of it, watch the movie sometime; aside from being true, its a damned good movie even if you're not from Philly or the Philly burbs. If you have kiddies, you might not want them to see it though; it gets pretty violent. Make sure they DON'T give you "The thin blue LINE). Again, all cadets must watch it as part of their training. Its told from the point of view of the reporter who uncovered it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Blue_Lie
Hey Nephilim and Gerry Nephilim My wife's brother-in-law gave me an RWS air pistol that I use for obnoxious yard critters. It's a bit pricey, but I didn't buy it. LOL It's accurate, carries a good punch, and is easy to get into action. The one I have is a slightly older version of the one in the link. Not much change other than the barrel. Mine is the same size the full length. That was a good looking air rifle you selected. It beats paying $300-$500 for an RWS rifle. Shooting pigeons isn't exactly match shooting. Gerry1 It's the same old debate and you'll see horrific figures and instances that call forth the anti-gun movement. What you described are social issues that call for more than just banning guns. If no guns, would that insure no deaths? I doubt it. People seem to manage well without guns. Guns just make it easier. As for senseless death tolls, what about highway deaths? Seems people kill people, but one way is acceptable and the other isn't. Shoot a man and there is moral outrage and a call to ban firearms. Run over a man and we mourn his loss as we drive to the wake, the funeral, and he is delivered to his grave by another automobile. Sometimes as a society, I wonder about our power of reasoning. The auto causes more deaths than war, yet it is less controlled than firearms use. Go figure. As for the constitution, I think it was written as a broad spectrum document that could withstand changing times. It's stood the test of time so far. In my opinion, the founding fathers intended the "right to bear arms" as a way to support a well armed militia and for the individual's right for self protection. In our country's early days, there wasn't a policeman around every corner and not everyone prescribed to the order of law. The same is true today. If you can't protect yourself, the most the police will be doing is analyzing a crime scene in an effort to catch the perps. My personal feelings are to enforce the laws on guns. There's more than enough to prevent a lot of happenings if the legal system would get its head out of its arse. It's illegal to sell guns to felons or anyone involved in violent crimes, such as domestic abuse. It's also illegal to sell to anyone with mental problems. That needs to be reported. If not, don't lay the problem at the feet of gun laws. As for buying and diverting guns to criminals, well... caviat emptor. Only in this case let the buyers be responsible for their actions. Just a thought... If we no longer need the right to bear arms, then whose to say we still need the right to free speech? What's wrong with allowing a religious sect to run the government? Who cares about "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"? If you tear down one part of the constitiution according to the desires of one group, what happens to the rest? Clean up the social problems and enforce the current laws and most of the gun problem would be under control. Otherwise do away with automobiles. There would be a far greater saving of lives than just banning firearms and it would slow the flow of guns from those states that don't appear to enforce laws strictly enough. I hate to think of some of the other things that might happen. Then... I fear some of the things that might happen if firearms are banned.
@Pac! ... nice to see you back my friend! Ah, therein lies the catch 22: those who support and promote that latter are the very ones who, by virtue of ideology, always refuse to promote and support the former. You're right in what you say, but you can't have the one without the other. It costs money to enforce laws, it costs money to build prisons, it costs money to change social structure and it costs money to put cops on the streets; you don't get that by taking money from the cities and investing in the burbs that need it far less. The burbs are turning to the cities to fill their jobs but the city folks are unable to get there. A twofold loss.
And on what is that based? My experience is just the opposite: those who preach gun control are almost universally unwilling to tackle societal problems or to attempt other measures at controlling crime. Yes, it costs money to build prisons. But the opposition to that seems to be coming primarily - if not exclusively - from the left, the camp that supports total gun control. It costs a lot to execute a prisoner, but it could cost much less, and I don't see too many outside the far left who oppose frying murderers, and - this is just my own personal experience - but quite a lot of people support the death penalty for other crimes as well e.g. child molestation, repeat offenders with long rap sheets, etc. On a separate topic, with respect to your earlier reply to my post on economics, urban areas have a very disproportionate amount of political influence as well. I tend to doubt your contention that Philly pays 'the lion's share' of PA taxes or anywhere close, seeing as the average income in Philly isn't so high. Indeed, taxes paid by rural and even suburban taxpayers tends to fund cities, rather than projects in their own back yards. But even if so, again, the urban areas have a vastly disproportionate amount of political (and media/public) influence. Take a look at New Jersey; the state is run by the highly urban northern half, with little or no funding going to the more rural southern half; NJ lawmakers have even managed to divert almost all homeland security money away from Republican-controlled towns and into Democrat-controlled cities, even though that money is intended to be used to secure ALL of NJ, not just Jersey City and Newark.
Good to be back and good to be chatting with you Gerry. Actually, just enforcing the current laws properly would go a long way toward solving gun problems. Social issues are more difficult, but I don't see the pro-gun lobby being against improving social conditions. There I miss the Catch 22 (good book by the way). It's not about one group being against the other, but in achieving both goals the end results would be better. Looking at the problem of violent crime, improving on either social issues or proper enforcement of current gun laws would improve the situation. Together they would go even farther. However, with the current government, I can only see abuses in getting either done. Maybe if we got rid of the politicians and replaced them with new blood with limited terms things might change. The way it is now, those guys and gals who are supposed to be serving the country are serving themselves.
Philly just doesn't have anymore prison space which is just plain stupid. My position on this would make the arch conservatives seem like liberals LOL! If I had my way, prisons would be privatized so it would be in the industry's best interest to build more of them. Secondly, I would change prison labor laws so that prisons were self supporting and don't take a dime of taxpayer money. It costs the taxpayer roughly fifty thousand dollars each year for every person incarcerated. I still can't condone those gun shops in VA selling to known felons though. It happens everywhere which is a big problem. The building I work in was raided by the FBI and (I forgot the other dept). THe licensing and inspections folks upstairs were selling permits to felons.
Sounds about par for the course, government employees breaking the law. LOL As I said, if the laws were just enforced properly. You're sounding like a hard right winger with those pay your own way jails. I have to say it does sound like a good idea. LOL I don't know anyone who wants to see gun laws disobeyed. Guess I don't know many crooks. As for the incompetent or criminal gun dealers, deal with them under the law. The laws are in place. However using cops to set up entrapment is questionable. Those guys can come up with legal documents to make illegal purchases. Catch the crooks and then if the guns lead back to a dealer or straw purchaser, nail their hides to the wall.
Those guns weren't being sold to known felons, unless we're talking about something else now. Last I remember, we were discussing the gun giveaway. Those guns were going to law-abiding citizens. And even the Bloomberg "straw purchasers" weren't felons to my knowledge; the only people breaking the law were the PIs and perhaps Bloomberg himself. The gun dealers apparently complied with all laws and have no control over what somebody does with a gun once it leaves their shop. For all we know, one of up might have ended up in the thug Bloomberg's hands. But until Minority Report becomes a reality, there will be no way for gun dealers to predict the future.
The bad guys are going to get the guns no matter. They just closed a gun store in a suburb of New Orleans where they were selling guns to qualified people but they were just standing in for the criminals. The guns were then handed to the bad people. Over 60% of the N.O. crimes involved guns from this one store! "Gun laws" are just like "locks"; they're for honest people.
@garmoon...well, you've certainly got a point; as I mentioned earlier, I once felt as you guys do...I still do to some degree. When I moved to Philly nearly twenty years ago, I knew that the cities had problems; I'd lived in Chicago, Boston and Miami where the problems didn't seem so bad but I doubt that its the case anymore; even in Philly, the problem has increased exponentially yet even when I first moved here, it was bad enough that I felt as if I'd moved into some third enbattled third world country. Just as I didn't know the true extent of the problems, neither does the public at large; I'm sure of it. All over the country, people have truly interesting discussions as we've had here...the constitution in general, the second amendment in particular, the intentions of the founding fathers, societal ills, the relationship between poverty and crime, lenient or uninforced laws etc. etc. but when such discussions, however logical and well framed, are devoid of possible solutions (as it is nationally and not just here, the subject becomes a mere academic pursuit without relevance. Anyone who merely reads the paper or watches the news knows that it is no longer a poverty related city problem; its spreading rather rapidly throughout the suburban and even rural areas. Murder in Philly, and most big cities I suspect, doesn't even make the news or the papers anymore....the only time murders seem to make the news is when it starts happening in areas where the phenomena was previously unknown. My little hometown of Woonsocket Rhode Island never had murders but in the last ten years, its had quite a few. This is a problem which is out of control in Philly but spreading quite quickly into places which never had the slightest problem. It seems that we, as a nation, never really act until a situation is grossly out of control. If you'll forgive the simile, its rather like Katrina in your neck of the woods; We've known for a long time that New Orleans would be wiped out for a long time, we do nothing, then we lament the destruction which could have been easily averted had we worked to avoid or at least minimize the the destructive force of the inevitable. Someone recently mention "Michael Nutter" who will be the next mayor of Philly. With all the problems in the city...poverty, hunger, joblessness and homelessness (we have literally thousands living in the tunnels of the subway system, Michael Nutter was elected because of the sweeping changes he proposes for the greatly increased authority of the police ... damned near a police state. While I'm not one of his supporters, I can understand WHY people voted for him; his ideas will never make it through legal challenges and if it did, we'd never have the money to pay for his proposals. Interesting discussions on history, the intentions founding fathers, society's ills etc. will change nothing without an effort to implement solutions. This is well on its way to becoming a national problem, not merely an urban one.
You do realize, however, that the tactics proposed by Nutter, Bloomberg, etc., even if police-state, will gain acceptance with the public? This is what I meant by the vastly disproportionate socio-political influence that cities have, which I mentioned previously. Cameras on every street corner, gun control, increased people control - this is exactly what us Second Amendment folks have been warning about. The public has begun to accept intrusions on other areas than the Second Amendment, just like we warned repeatedly. Personally, I am not nearly as against the supposed/imagined privacy invasions and restrictions on freedom of speech/assembly as most of my pro-Second brethren, but I hope you realize that it is, for the most part, the same folks who are actively working to eliminate the Second Amendment as who are working to gut the First, Fourth, etc. And many of these folks laughed at the gun lobby when they said, just a few scant years ago, that once the Second Amendment was gutted, the politicians would go after other civil liberties. Who's laughing now?
Dunker, very well said i couldn't agree with you more the idiots that want to gut the Second Amendment like Rosie O'Donald (btw she's a piece of crap) are actually helping our side IMO Dunker
@Dunker...I couldn't disagree more strongly regarding the freedom of speech; violating laws against free speech is what put a death warrant on our founding fathers even before the revolution. If they hadn't violated the british laws against free speech, we still be singing "God Save the Queesn! (No offense to my British friends here LOL!) Even politically sensitive issues like flag burning: while I don't like it, Ben Franlin and his rowdies burnt british flags and effigies of King George with some regularity just a stones throw from where I'm sitting. Would we make illegal the very same type of protests that some of the founding fathers engaged in? I certainly do agree with you in certain respects; Michael Nutter's police state policies were warmly embraced because people are scared (though his policies will never survive legal challenges). The same happened after 9/11 ... some of the policies imposed by the feds are pretty scary and there was no uproar because people were scared; it was Neph's pet pieve at the beginning of this thread somewhere. It wasn't long ago that we use to point the finger and criticize the Castro's, Hussaine, Iranians, Russians etc for imprisoning people without charges or legal representation ... it was unthinkable to the U.S. population and now we're doing the same thing here with our own citizens. That's scary. Like good ol' Ben Franklin said: I couldn't agree more! You know, this is somewhat off topic but should you ever get the chance, watch the history channel's show on the founding fathers ... it's both funny as it is informative. I'm so sick and tired of the religious fanatics painting the founding fathers as these super religious holy Joes. Damn, those guys knew how to party LOL!
