Speaking of open letters and tiresome arguments, Philadelphia Mayor John Street wants to do something about what he calls the city's problem with "gun violence," but he's not advocating getting tough with the criminal users of guns. Rather, he's written an open letter to Governor Rendell asking for help with a moratorium on the issuance of carry permits:
In his letter, Street said that despite such administration programs as Safe Streets, which sought to reduce drug-related violence, and faith-based initiatives, the city was stymied by laws that make it unable to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Street said there were 28,000 active gun permits in the city, compared with New York City, where there are 16,000 such permits, prompting his review of the gun-permit policy.
Street has not presented one iota of evidence that carry permit holders are the problem, because they are not. In order to obtain a carry permit in Philadelphia, applicants must apply in person, fill out this form (which asks extensive questions about criminal records, use of drugs, mental illness, juvenile delinquency, character and reputation). Philadelphia then performs an extensive background check, but only after an interview:
If all paperwork is in order, the applicant will then be interviewed by Gun Permits & Tracking Unit Personnel. When the interview is completed, a state and local background investigation will be conducted to ascertain if the applicant is acceptable under law to be issued a “Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms".
Philadelphia was specifically exempted from Pennsylvania's 1989 carry permit laws, and places more obstacles in the way of citizens seeking to protect themselves than anywhere else in the state.
What should be painfully obvious by now is that those carefully screened people who are finally granted carry permits in Philadelphia are not criminals. They do not need to be disarmed. In fact, they are the kind of people whose presence on Philadelphia's streets makes everyone in the city safer. Yet Street wants to disarm them because of crimes committed by other people. Never mind statistics:
Carry permit holders are much more law-abiding than the rest of the public. Only a minuscule percentage of permit holders commit firearm crimes.
(More here.) Saying that guns owned by these screened citizens are the problem when they are not is about as logical as saying that guns in the hands of the police are the problem.
But Street can cite no statistics at all, so instead he bases his opposition to carry permits on the homicide rate. And even that he exaggerates:
Almost 80 percent of our 348 homicides in 2003 were committed with a gun...
There's one statistic I'd love to see, but which will never see print in the Inquirer: the percentage of shooters who could have obtained a carry permit in Philadelphia (or, for that matter, anywhere in Pennsylvania).
I'd be willing to bet it would be almost zero.
posted by Eric on 03.16.05 at 08:02 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2095
Comments
What is at issue here is not so much the permits. I will assume your law makers there have the intellect to regulate guns to suitable people, however I haven't investigated if this is true or not. Their may be possible positive changes to be made to the registration laws.
One of my favorite laws that we use in Toronto, Canada states that if a weapon registered to you is ever used in a crime you are legally liable and criminally responsible for that crime in addition to the person who used the gun at the time of the crime. Makes people think twice about leaving their gun where it may be stolen.
Personally, I think the problem simply comes from the number of guns produced and held within the US. I mean dealers or shop owners who are selling these weapons and the companies making them in such large numbers. Simply they are abundantly available.
Guns kill. Lots of guns have the potential to kill lots of living things. Plain simple logic. Less guns means less potential for that type of killing.
Now before attacking this statement, consider other nations such as Canada, the UK, and Japan which have lower firearm related homocides. What is different about these nations is a different social and cultural acceptance of the existance of guns in the nation.
The psychological impact on society of disliking guns in any form changes the social acceptance and likelyhood of their usage by all. For this reason I applaude any law maker who wishes to make the use or ownership of guns more difficult and less socially acceptable.
It is akin to banning smoking bans. In my city smoking has been banned in nearly every possible place other than your home. What this has done is turned smoking into a socially unacceptable behaviour and caused smokers to feel so much shame that they now appologise to people when they smoke anywhere near them, even in their own homes or outside. The result has been a drastic reduction in the number of smokers. Consider this for a moment and dont brush aside the psychological impact of such changes without due thought.
scott · March 16, 2005 09:46 PM
There should be more permits issued. If a criminal thought most people around him had a loaded gun, he'd be less likely to commit a crime.
Eric, your post provides compelling evidence that gun owners should not register themselves or their weapons. The city of Philadelphia knows exactly where to go to find them.
Scott, please don't hold Japan up as an example of a model society without guns. Japanese are helpless when it comes to self defense, and the police are useless.
as a liberal, I would prefer a society with no guns. If no guns are made (especially those only for killing people and not for hunting) no one can be shot. The Arizona senate is trying to pass a law allowing guns in bars. while 'technically' the owner cannot drink in the bar (he/she can show up drunk) and the weapon must be showing at all times; I think bar crowds, alcohol and guns together are just asking for trouble.
One of the biggest ways criminals get guns (from my understanding) is 1)stealing them or 2) buying them from dealerships under the table for big $$$. My main understaning is that if these gun shops were closely monitored for 'stolen' materials, you'd have a lost less guns on the street. From what I undestand, the NRA is opposed to closer monitoring of shops; though I have never understood why (though I have heard gun producers make a lot of money off under the table sales).
I've been curious for a while now, what a conservative plan would look like to limit guns getting to criminals (since i've never seen one offered). I don't buy Alexa's plan (I don't think criminals think that far ahead), but is there some goverment system we could generate to keep these things away from kids/sociopaths?
-Alchemist
I get this amazingly powerfull feeling everytime I hold a gun, it must be what God feels like when He holds a gun. -Homer J. Simpson
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
What is at issue here is not so much the permits. I will assume your law makers there have the intellect to regulate guns to suitable people, however I haven't investigated if this is true or not. Their may be possible positive changes to be made to the registration laws.
One of my favorite laws that we use in Toronto, Canada states that if a weapon registered to you is ever used in a crime you are legally liable and criminally responsible for that crime in addition to the person who used the gun at the time of the crime. Makes people think twice about leaving their gun where it may be stolen.
Personally, I think the problem simply comes from the number of guns produced and held within the US. I mean dealers or shop owners who are selling these weapons and the companies making them in such large numbers. Simply they are abundantly available.
Guns kill. Lots of guns have the potential to kill lots of living things. Plain simple logic. Less guns means less potential for that type of killing.
Now before attacking this statement, consider other nations such as Canada, the UK, and Japan which have lower firearm related homocides. What is different about these nations is a different social and cultural acceptance of the existance of guns in the nation.
The psychological impact on society of disliking guns in any form changes the social acceptance and likelyhood of their usage by all. For this reason I applaude any law maker who wishes to make the use or ownership of guns more difficult and less socially acceptable.
It is akin to banning smoking bans. In my city smoking has been banned in nearly every possible place other than your home. What this has done is turned smoking into a socially unacceptable behaviour and caused smokers to feel so much shame that they now appologise to people when they smoke anywhere near them, even in their own homes or outside. The result has been a drastic reduction in the number of smokers. Consider this for a moment and dont brush aside the psychological impact of such changes without due thought.