Leave the gun, take the groceries

Philadelphia Police Officer Erik Bullock tells mayoral candidate and U.S. Representative Chaka Fattah how a Korean assault rifle can go through body armor. The weapon was one of 267 firearms to be traded in during Saturday's "Guns for Groceries" gun drop-

An elderly woman walked up to a policeman stationed at 46th and Market streets, reached into her purse and pulled out a handgun.

Holding the weapon up to the officer, the woman - likely pushing 70 - gingerly dropped it into his hands and walked away with a pair of basketball tickets in her hand.

This trade was one of many at West Philadelphia's "Guns for Groceries" event on Saturday, during which residents were able to hand in their firearms, no questions asked, for $200 in food vouchers and a pair of Philadelphia 76ers tickets.

With Philadelphia hampered by a rising murder rate, the event was an effort to take guns "out of harm's way, out of homes - environments where people can just pick them up," said State Sen. Vincent Hughes, who organized the event along with mayoral candidate Chaka Fattah and Councilwoman Blondell Brown.

Of 406 homicide victims in Philadelphia last year, 344 were killed with firearms.

"Guns for Groceries" did its part to combat that trend by collecting 267 guns, including semi-automatic handguns, rifles, sawn-off shotguns and a Korean AK-47.

Philadelphians wanting to get rid of their guns walked up to a cluster of vans outside Hughes' office at 4601 Market St. Saturday and handed their weapons over to a group of police officers manning the event.

In the bitter cold, officers opened the guns, many still loaded with live ammunition, and placed them in the back of a van, gradually adding to the pile of gleaming barrels.

Old ladies who would never seem to be packing heat pulled out small leather bags from their purses, revealing tiny pistols, alongside men with sleek rifles wrapped in flowery blankets.

One man - who, like most handing in weapons, did not want to be named - said he'd had his rifle to defend his home.

"It's like a fire escape," he said. "You hope you'll never have to use it."

For most people at the event, it was the prospect of their children gaining access to a gun that drove them to give up their weapons.

"I don't want my grandkids getting hold of this," said one elderly man who was turning in a revolver that he had owned for 30 years.

The day's haul included such oddities as a Japanese World War II rifle, with the imperial sun clearly visible on the metal, and an SKS assault rifle, a Korean reproduction of an AK-47.

"This is as bad as you're going to find on the street," Philadelphia Police Officer Erik Bullock said of the Korean rifle. He explained that a shot from this kind of weapon could go right through a policeman's bulletproof vest.

At a noon press conference, Fattah, who also represents Penn's district as a U.S. Representative, said the event was integral in making Philadelphia safer.

The drop-off is "getting guns off the street, out of homes - guns that could be used in anger," he said.

The West Philadelphia drop-off follows a similar event in North Philadelphia on Martin Luther King Day, during which 252 weapons were handed in.

Accompanying the initiative is the Illegal Guns hotline, 215-546-TIPS, through which people can report illegal guns. If their report leads to an arrest within 72 hours, callers can receive $1,000 worth of vouchers.

Comments (24)

Even if you agree that bearing arms is a civil right, Josh's argument is a non starter. Buying a gun from someone does not preclude that person from buying another one at a later time. This is an economic transaction, nothing more. By Josh's logic, the gun store owner surrenders his civil rights every time he makes a transaction. That said, I don't see how these gun buyback programs can be effective. Criminals will either not participate or buy another gun when they're ready to commit a crime.

[QUOTE id="d0043183-00c4-4c6b-b1cd-e3a789b3f422"]Hmm.. Offering someone money to surrender a civil right�? What would people think if someone set up a van in West Philadelphia and offered $200 and basketball tickets to anyone in exchange for agreeing not to vote in the next election? Would the DP be touting it as a great thing, or a horrible travesty? Just wondering??[/QUOTE] No one is asking these people to surrender their rights. Rather, if they choose not to have a weapon in their home, they now have a safe outlet (and incentive) to get rid of it. Philadelphia police are not asking people to surrender their right to bear arms-- they are simply trying to get guns that people find unnecessary off the street. Your metaphor to voting is inane. Last I checked, voting didn't kill 344 people last year.

A vote for Bush killed more than 344...

[QUOTE id="5949b2af-549b-4f0d-8ece-29fa5c9b2b67"] That said, I don't see how these gun buyback programs can be effective. Criminals will either not participate or buy another gun when they're ready to commit a crime.[/QUOTE] The enterprising young criminal probably knows not to trade in his gun for Sixers tickets if he's planning a chain of muggings for the following week.

They don't have to "surrender their civil right" if they don't want to...which in effect means their civil right is not being taken away. LESS guns on the streets can only be a good thing - if one of the animals decides to turn his in and then buy another one he would have less to pick from, right? What's so wrong with that? What's sad is that a little old lady who may own it legally, and needs it for protection, turns it in because she NEEDS the money....and that is another argument altogether.

[QUOTE id="5949b2af-549b-4f0d-8ece-29fa5c9b2b67"]Even if you agree that bearing arms is a civil right, Josh's argument is a non starter. Buying a gun from someone does not preclude that person from buying another one at a later time. This is an economic transaction, nothing more. By Josh's logic, the gun store owner surrenders his civil rights every time he makes a transaction. That said, I don't see how these gun buyback programs can be effective. Criminals will either not participate or buy another gun when they're ready to commit a crime.[/QUOTE] [This is absolutely hysterical. This is an obvious attempt by Philadelphia to blame guns for their lack of leadership in handling the numerous homicides in this town. One officer comments that "one shot from this gun could go right through a police officer�?s bulletproof vest". The only weapons that can penetrate a vest are high-caliber rifles, not the Korean version of an AK-47. Furthermore, this has a dangerous connotation that the police department is collecting guns, a RIGHT not a privilege, from people and thinking this is supposed to stop the violence-then why is it doing nothing? Look at the stats. Fattah is a moron, �?getting guns off the street that can be used in anger�?? Or, how about that can be used to save lives in a situation where police officers are unable or unwilling to aid a citizen-especially in neighborhoods where many of these crimes occur? If the prospect of a gun getting in the hands of a child is terrifying for a parent-then follow the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS and safely lock away your weapon. The whole idea behind this program negates the responsibility of the individual. For example, if people go through red lights, or enter into cross walk areas in traffic other people are killed and that is done frequently enough, then there should be programs for turning in one�?s car, right? The fact is negligent driving and car accidents account for FAR FAR more deaths than guns. Turn that report in to the police department and this clown of a mayor.

First to Mr. Stevko: It depends on what type of vest you are wearing to make the determination of whether or not a bullet will go through it. The most a vest can do at this point [at least the ones military and police use] is stop a single .762 round. Depending on how the bullet strikes, it has the ability to stop at many as 2, but after that it cannot prevent the bullet from reaching the skin. This layer of defense requires the wearer of the armor to also be wearing SAPI plates [Small Arms Protective Inserts]. Most of the vests police officers wear on a daily basis can only stop 9mm rounds, not .762, which is the caliber bullet that the Korean made AK-47 takes. To others: Most of the criminals who commit these gun-related murders do not acquire them legally, clearly. 83% of the 344 gun-related deaths last year were executed using illegally obtained firearms. The problem isn't the existence of guns, but rather the irresponsible distribution of them by a few. Disgusted: A vote for Bush didn't kill anyone, and it is completely irresponsible to say so. American soldiers have died in harms way under almost every past president as well. And, in a lot of cases, the number who have died had far surpassed the number who have died while Bush has been President. Get a life or a better argument.

Brandon, you are referring to the 7.62mm round, which is measured at .308. This round is highly penetrative, albeit slightly less powerful than a .308 winchester which is a longer cartridge. (ever hunt deer?) It is not .762. Fired from an AK style rifle (regardless of country of origin) it will penetrate vests rather easily. Most police vests stop all handgun rounds up to 45 ACP (exluding steel tipped ammunition, the 7.62 Tokarev, and the FN 5.7 round etc). Most rifles from .223 up make easy work of vests.

[QUOTE id="53a8ec84-e0db-40d1-8a82-ce9bfce53d50"]They don't have to "surrender their civil right" if they don't want to...which in effect means their civil right is not being taken away. LESS guns on the streets can only be a good thing - if one of the animals decides to turn his in and then buy another one he would have less to pick from, right? What's so wrong with that? What's sad is that a little old lady who may own it legally, and needs it for protection, turns it in because she NEEDS the money....and that is another argument altogether.[/QUOTE] Please stop with the "animals" language. Yes, it's inhuman to kill your fellow man but the point is real human beings are the ones doing it, whether it be because of circumstances or personal moral failing. Aside from the uncomfortable racial connotations, to label the criminal element in West Philly as "animals" does nothing as such dehumanizing rhetoric won't change the mind of the perpetrators, it can only dehumanize them in the minds of others. This is not an attempt to be PC as I and everyone else have no power to stop you from using the language you choose. However, crime is something we must all try to stop and nothing is accomplished by endlessly touting the criminals of West Philly as animals.

They might not be able to stop any of the killing with illegal firearms, but they sure as heck were bad ass at stopping you from smoking! Nice to see they have thier priorities straight in this city.

The SKS rifle is A) Not Korean, and B) Not a reproduction of the AK-47. It is a precursor to the AK-type rifle, has no fully-automatic mode, and usually a fixed 10-round magazine. It is perfectly legal to own in nearly every state of the union. Ten seconds on Wikipedia would have cleared that up. As a journalist, your duty is to investigate, not simply regurgitate what authority figures tell you.

I disagree with these buyback programs as it does nothing to stop crime. At most it just lightens the city's coffers as people who have an old firearm lying around just see it as a paperweight and want some fast cash. The no-questions-asked turn in policy is problematic as well. This has two negative consequences. First, a criminal can steal a lawfully owned firearm and get away with the theft while the original owner no recourse. Second, they provide for easy evidence disposal. If a criminal has used the firearm to commit a crime, he can just drop it off and get a gift in return without the police giving a second glance. What a deal for them. As for the SKS, $200 in grocery money plus free basketball tickets is a net gain for what those are worth. :)

I really dislike arguments against gun control that cite automobile accidents and so-called personal responsibility. There are fundamental differences between a firearm and a car. A firearm's chief function is to kill. It serves no other purpose, save perhaps to be used as an instrument of intimidation. An automobile's chief function is transport. Yes, they are dangerous, yes they can be used irresponsibly, but equating a gun to a car is like equating a bomb with a lawnmower. And, unlike a firearm, a car cannot be concealed. Right to bear arms indeed. I have no problem with the use of firearms in "a well-regulated mitilia" as the amendment says, nor do I have a problem with weapons used for hunting. But how many people hunt with handguns?

I dunno, man. A nice Yugo with the cosmoline stripped off... the low cost is misleading. They're fun fun fun, and tough as dirt.

For the perspective of those who live with this problem every day, you might want to check out this article from tomorrow's Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0213/p01s02-ussc.html

Disgusted: What is it that you wish to add to the discussion? The behavior on both sides of the political spectrum is saddening, yours included. People are dying every day and your thought is: "Hey, why not make a sardonic comment (that might get some cynical smiles from equally callous individuals) about the deaths of soldiers and voting. Sure, I'm disgusted, but not enough to refrain from crass comments that show more disdain for a president than respect for dead soldiers--something which I am basing this crass comment on. I suggest that if you really care about those deaths, and not just about making your disagreement with the president known (even if you think anyone here cares about your singular opinion at this immediate point in time) you should be less glib. Please stop. It is intellectually dishonest and suggests significant immaturity on your part. As to [constitutional]//[civil???] rights and guns: I don't think discussions of the right to bear arms should be limited to ConLaw lawyers, but I certainly think that such topics have been more adequately addressed on other Blogs (or Blawgs, as it were). Anyway, carry on.

Hmm.. Offering someone money to surrender a civil right�? What would people think if someone set up a van in West Philadelphia and offered $200 and basketball tickets to anyone in exchange for agreeing not to vote in the next election? Would the DP be touting it as a great thing, or a horrible travesty? Just wondering??

Really nice lede and headline!

i think instead of buying grocieries in exchange for guns, people should buy groceries while openly carrying handguns!

DP Reader, First off, a firearm's chief function is not to kill. If that were the case, the police and many firearm enthusiasts would have a serious case against firearm manufacturers for failing to provide a quality product. I own over a dozen firearms. None of them have ever been used to kill. I guess they're all defective, huh? A firearm's main function is to accurately propel a lead or copper bullet at great speed. In plain language, they send bullets that way, real fast! They can be used to kill, and they can be very effective for that purpose, but killing is not their designed purpose. Secondly, I agree with your point that the car argument is misleading, based upon your assumptions that a car is for transport (a completely benign purpose) and a gun is not designed for transport. The problem is, as you state, a car can be misused. That right there is the entire point of the argument. A firearm that is misused is no different than a car that is misused, or a hammer, or a baseball bat, or a knife. All can end in tragedy. The continuation of that argument goes sorta like this--If we take guns away from everybody because criminals might misuse them, shouldn't we consider taking away cars from everybody because criminals might misuse them? Firearms (and all arms) are a civil right. Automobiles are not. It actually makes more sense (constitutionally speaking) to argue that we should be removing cars from people to spare all those victims of automobile violence, yet the public would riot in the streets if that were seriously suggested as a course of action. And rightly so. Lastly, lots of people hunt with handguns. There are entire lines of handguns specially suited to that purpose. BR

[QUOTE id="40c8f20d-4371-465f-99ef-9ba6777d6659"]I disagree with these buyback programs as it does nothing to stop crime. At most it just lightens the city's coffers as people who have an old firearm lying around just see it as a paperweight and want some fast cash. The no-questions-asked turn in policy is problematic as well. This has two negative consequences. First, a criminal can steal a lawfully owned firearm and get away with the theft while the original owner no recourse. Second, they provide for easy evidence disposal. If a criminal has used the firearm to commit a crime, he can just drop it off and get a gift in return without the police giving a second glance. What a deal for them. As for the SKS, $200 in grocery money plus free basketball tickets is a net gain for what those are worth. :)[/QUOTE] The folks at the National Academy of Sciences agree with you that these buybacks don't work for the reasons you cite, as does a quick scan of the literature (including a British Medical Journal and American Journal of Public Health article, too lazy to link, sorry). They also mention there are 70 million hand guns in the country and 7500 used in crimes annually. Never underestimate the willingness of people to engage in pointless theatrical bullshit with zero payoff in order to stroke their own egos and/or line their own pockets, or curry other favors.

inister of this celebrated camper encumbrance appear germane identical if you cannot fit out palpabl

Comments are closed for this item.