Public, but not courts, favors gun measures

Mayor Nutter recently signed five controversial gun measures into law.

Despite last week's court ruling blocking the enforcement of new gun-control measures in Philadelphia, some faculty, students and city residents are still calling for what they call "common-sense" firearm laws.

The proposed measures, signed into law by Mayor Nutter earlier this month, would limit individuals to one firearm purchase per month, require that owners report lost or stolen guns within 24 hours, ban the possession of automatic weapons and prohibit persons with an order of protection against them and persons deemed dangerous from possessing firearms.

"They seem like common-sense, what are you doing with a gun that requires a new one every month?" Philadelphia native and College freshman Suzanna Connell said.

The measures were unanimously passed in City Council and signed into law on April 10, just days after similar legislation was defeated in the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

"The tension here arises from the use of a rural majority in the legislature at the state level, and a big city population that has a very different culture," Lawrence Sherman, director of Penn's Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, said.

Philadelphia's laws were drafted largely in response to an outcry from city residents.

"When a city like Philadelphia tries to use its democratic process to self-govern they can't," Sherman said. "It's part of a state government that won't allow it."

Shortly after the measures were signed into law, the National Rifle Association, in conjunction with two local gun store owners, filed a lawsuit, questioning the city government's authority to legislate guns. A Philadelphia judge sided with the NRA, blocking enforcement of the laws.

Sherman, who is currently lecturing in Wales, said he believes that in order to make "any kind of change" Philadelphia must be able to make its own laws, separate from that of the state legislature.

England and Wales have strict gun-control laws, and their murder rate is 27 times lower than that of Philadelphia, Sherman said.

"Ironically there's more violence but far fewer people get killed because they're all fist fights," he added

Lifelong West Philadelphia resident Latisha Moore, 27, said she believes that if it weren't for Philadelphia's lack of gun control, the father of her child wouldn't be sitting behind bars for murder.

"He never had a gun," Moore said. "He only got one because everyone else has them."

The father of Moore's three-year-old son shot and killed another man in self-defense while under the influence of alcohol, according to Moore.

But some still remain wary of gun control's ability to prevent crime.

"If you just outlaw guns in Philadelphia, the people that use guns for illegal things are going to be the ones that still get the guns," Connell said.

Comments (21)

First off, any of those gun control laws proposed would have had zero effect on that wife of a criminal. He got an illegal gun. Had he purchased it legally through the permit process, he could have defended himself legally, while not drunk. Furthermore, one gun per month does not make any sense. It would make more sense to ration beers or alcohol as 1 per hour, since multiple beers intoxicates you whereas having 1 or 10 guns makes no difference. To Suzanna Connell, I ask, where should government stop when it comes to regulating what we do? This amendment affords you self-defense. Check the supreme court, if you are being attacked, and the police are busy, you have no recourse if you are injured. As for some of the other laws, Judges do take into account firearm ownership as part of the order of protection.

Our legislators need to be investigated for their conspiracy in this gun epidemic that has swept our country. If these were people walking around with machetes or swords we would not tolerate it. But the gun industry has purchased our leaders. As a nation we need to stand together and demand the corrupt politicians who are turning a blind eye while their pockets jingle be investigated, and removed from office. I refuse to vote for anyone who belongs to the NRA, and anyone who has supported this killing machine. Gun owners prove daily how irresponsible, angry, extremist they are. Humans are now their new targets.

Decades ago, this headline could've been "Public, but not courts, favor segregation." That's why we have courts in this country. Also, to all the people who want to ban guns...we have a 2nd amendment, and people use guns for legal, legitimate purposes (self-protection, hunting, sport/target shooting) every day. Stop trying to ban guns, you're out of step with most Americans AND the courts.

[QUOTE id="214f0c82-0ea8-4b19-9b59-5441c50cd426"]Decades ago, this headline could've been "Public, but not courts, favor segregation." That's why we have courts in this country. Also, to all the people who want to ban guns...we have a 2nd amendment, and people use guns for legal, legitimate purposes (self-protection, hunting, sport/target shooting) every day. Stop trying to ban guns, you're out of step with most Americans AND the courts.[/QUOTE] I agree with you 100% - let people have all the guns they want - I am, however, strongly opposed to the manufacturing and distribution of bullets.

Most of the pro gun students are guilty of adolescent rescue and revenge fantasies. They imagine scenarios where they rescue damsels in distress or shoot criminals or terrorists in self defense. Grow up losers.

Here's a law I think we can all agree on: "Punish the criminals, not the law abiders" 1. Any person found in possession of an unregistered or illegally purchased gun will get a mandatory 40 year sentence without the possibility of parole as the only reason to have an illegal gun is to commit destructive illegal activities. 2. Any person who uses a firearm in a violent crime (not self-defense) will receive a mandatory 50+ year sentence without the possibility of parole. 3. Any person found to be illegally distributing guns will be given a mandatory 40 year sentence. This law would be very harsh on any illegal, destructive activity but would not hurt anyone who was being responsible. There doesn't have to be a limit on the number of purchases, or any other ridiculous gun-control measures; this solves the problem by attacking those who are the true trouble-makers.

Oh dear lord! Is that rogue Mayor Nutter trying to have sex with the legislators' girlfriends again? He has no respect for the second amendment, the supremacy of state law over municipal, or feminine virtue. Scoundrel!

[QUOTE id="098a8555-d1f1-4f68-bffe-453c4827201e"]Most of the pro gun students are guilty of adolescent rescue and revenge fantasies. They imagine scenarios where they rescue damsels in distress or shoot criminals or terrorists in self defense. Grow up losers.[/QUOTE] So presenting such a highly reasoned comment like this makes you think that you're "grown up"? Can you present a reasoned response as to why Nutter should violate the laws and constitution of the state?

[QUOTE id="3088da8b-eaf0-477d-8096-e811fdc7f882"]Here's a law I think we can all agree on: "Punish the criminals, not the law abiders" 1. Any person found in possession of an unregistered or illegally purchased gun will get a mandatory 40 year sentence without the possibility of parole as the only reason to have an illegal gun is to commit destructive illegal activities. 2. Any person who uses a firearm in a violent crime (not self-defense) will receive a mandatory 50+ year sentence without the possibility of parole. 3. Any person found to be illegally distributing guns will be given a mandatory 40 year sentence. This law would be very harsh on any illegal, destructive activity but would not hurt anyone who was being responsible. There doesn't have to be a limit on the number of purchases, or any other ridiculous gun-control measures; this solves the problem by attacking those who are the true trouble-makers.[/QUOTE] Sorry, can't quite agree with you. Registration of firearms is usually followed by confiscation. It has happened time after time throughout history. It has happened in this country. I will not endorse registration and I deplore those governments that require it.

[QUOTE id="d288e130-1ef5-467c-856d-317f4e554a80"]Our legislators need to be investigated for their conspiracy in this gun epidemic that has swept our country. If these were people walking around with machetes or swords we would not tolerate it. But the gun industry has purchased our leaders. As a nation we need to stand together and demand the corrupt politicians who are turning a blind eye while their pockets jingle be investigated, and removed from office. I refuse to vote for anyone who belongs to the NRA, and anyone who has supported this killing machine. Gun owners prove daily how irresponsible, angry, extremist they are. Humans are now their new targets.[/QUOTE] You are way off base on nearly every count. The NRA isn't a rich organization that can afford to buy off every politician in this country. Did you know that the NRA spends most of it's money on programs to educate people about the SAFE use of firearms? Did you know that the NRA is a leader in setting up training and friendly competitions for police officers? Did you know that the NRA is just as enraged about firearms being used in a crime as you are? You need to learn the difference between criminals and gun owners. Criminals are the problem, not those of us who legally own guns. In fact, we make you safer whether you like it or not. Criminals do not know who might be armed so they have to be a bit careful. I suggest you post a sign in your front yard saying "This house is a firearms free zone". Why don't you go ahead and do that, see how long it takes for someone to take advantage of such a "safe" victim.

So what the students are saying is that you should be allowed to ignore any law you feel like ignoring, after all that is exactly what Mayor Nutter and the Philadelphia legislature have done. So if they do not have to follow the law, why should the people follow any law they pass? Leading by example again, I see.

England and Wales have strict gun-control laws, and their murder rate is 27 times lower than that of Philadelphia, Sherman said. First, did England and Wales have a wide proliferation of guns before these laws were enacted? Also, comparing a particularly violence saturated city to an entire country (or two) isn't exactly accurate. " Lifelong West Philadelphia resident Latisha Moore, 27, said she believes that if it weren't for Philadelphia's lack of gun control, the father of her child wouldn't be sitting behind bars for murder. "He never had a gun," Moore said. "He only got one because everyone else has them." The father of Moore's three-year-old son shot and killed another man in self-defense while under the influence of alcohol, according to Moore. " Ignoring the immediate contradiction in Moore's quote, if it was really self-defense, he wouldn't be in jail for murder. There is clearly more complexity to the story, and using it to garner support for an issue based on emotion (as opposed to that thing called reason) is foolish. It's not even that the elements of the proposed enforcement listed in the article are bad, (barring that Philly isn't allowed to pass them), they just won't deter violent crime nearly as much as people think. You want to curtail people who may be legally purchasing weapons to sell illegally to violent criminals from doing so? Fine, although criminals will have other means, why make it easier. But why must we construct arguments out of blatantly skewed data, emotional anecdotes, and presumed self-evident "common-sense" intuition?

[QUOTE id="3088da8b-eaf0-477d-8096-e811fdc7f882"]Here's a law I think we can all agree on: "Punish the criminals, not the law abiders" 1. Any person found in possession of an unregistered or illegally purchased gun will get a mandatory 40 year sentence without the possibility of parole as the only reason to have an illegal gun is to commit destructive illegal activities. 2. Any person who uses a firearm in a violent crime (not self-defense) will receive a mandatory 50+ year sentence without the possibility of parole. 3. Any person found to be illegally distributing guns will be given a mandatory 40 year sentence. This law would be very harsh on any illegal, destructive activity but would not hurt anyone who was being responsible. There doesn't have to be a limit on the number of purchases, or any other ridiculous gun-control measures; this solves the problem by attacking those who are the true trouble-makers.[/QUOTE] I understand some of the NRA's fears regarding registration then confiscation. However, the NRA's slippery slope view on everything hurts public safety. The NRA trumpets responsible gun ownership than opposes any law that is designed to target irresponsible gun owners.

England and Wales have strict gun-control laws, and their murder rate is 27 times lower than that of Philadelphia, Sherman said. The 4 million members of the NRA have a nonexistent murder rate. So how is it, if guns cause crime, that one of the most heavily armed civilian demographics on the planet has a lower rate than disarmed England and Wales?

[QUOTE id="c24fae44-bfdd-4bae-9210-1207de290505"]"England and Wales have strict gun-control laws, and their murder rate is 27 times lower than that of Philadelphia, Sherman said." The 4 million members of the NRA have a nonexistent murder rate. So how is it, if guns cause crime, that one of the most heavily armed civilian demographics on the planet has a lower rate than disarmed England and Wales?[/QUOTE] Here's a neat statistic culled from the FBI: more people die in car crashes than in murders, and less than half of murders are committed with firearms, and most of those are with illegally acquired firearms (ie stolen guns, guns bought in bulk and then sold on the street by organized crime, guns smuggled across the border or from China in shipping containers). Let's get a bit of perspective on the size of the problem. The problem Nutter is trying to "solve" is concentrated mostly in North Philly. Banning guns in Northeast Philly, Center City, South Philly, and West Philly, aside from violating a key provision of the Bill of Rights, really won't make the citizenry North of Spring Garden Street any less violent or any less criminal. You still wouldn't want to take a stroll down Cecil B Moore Ave at 2 in the morning.

[QUOTE id="c24fae44-bfdd-4bae-9210-1207de290505"]"England and Wales have strict gun-control laws, and their murder rate is 27 times lower than that of Philadelphia, Sherman said." The 4 million members of the NRA have a nonexistent murder rate. So how is it, if guns cause crime, that one of the most heavily armed civilian demographics on the planet has a lower rate than disarmed England and Wales?[/QUOTE] Those FBI statistics are national, not local. The gun smuggling you discuss is national, not local. This situation is a local issue and needs local solutions. Most of the guns on Philly streets aren't from Chinese arms dealers, but purchased by local residents with clean records. The gun carriers often have their girlfriends with clean records purchase the weapons for them. This is the evidence the PPD has presented and the reason why the city is seeking these legislative solutions.

These "solutions" as you call them violate the rights of law-abiding citizens to address a problem caused by a lawless minority. That's a bandage, not a solution. A real solution would be stop pissing away city money so you can hire more police officers and prosecutors to arrest and convict that same lawless minority and lock them up and/or kill them off after a fair and public trial by a jury of their peers. And guess what, you can do that without spitting on the Bill of Rights.

Common sense??? How dare you use common sense in your argument!!! Why... people might have to actually think for themselves!!! And we all know what that can lead to- PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!! I say BAN COMMON SENSE!!! Then, no one will care that we're slowly becoming the USSA (United Socialist States of America). The Bill of Rights will be meaningless (gettin' closer everyday!)... and OH,WHAT A TIME WE'LL HAVE!!!

[QUOTE id="96b88150-3fd2-4ccb-a3e1-85f78a2e7841"]Common sense??? How dare you use common sense in your argument!!! Why... people might have to actually think for themselves!!! And we all know what that can lead to- PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!! I say BAN COMMON SENSE!!! Then, no one will care that we're slowly becoming the USSA (United Socialist States of America). The Bill of Rights will be meaningless (gettin' closer everyday!)... and OH,WHAT A TIME WE'LL HAVE!!![/QUOTE] Classic episode: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cartridge_Family

Comments are closed for this item.