TMI dude
Posted on 07/17/2007 5:36:40 AM PDT by new cruelty
When Mayor Street spent 15 hours waiting in line for an iPhone recently, the city was not impressed by his love of new technology. Rather, Street had to answer to a passerby asking, "How can you sit here with 200 murders in the city already?"
Local politicians say they know the source of the problem: the lack of gun control. Gov. Rendell recently complained the state legislature "has been in the control of the NRA." Street blames the increasing murder rate on "the dangerous proliferation of guns on our city streets." Last Tuesday, two City Council members announced the novel legal tactic of suing the state government to let Philadelphia pass its own gun laws.
The desire "to do something" is understandable, but new gun laws aren't the answer.
In the five years from 2001 to 2006, Philadelphia's murder rate soared more than 36 percent while nationally, the murder rate increased only 2 percent. Indeed, only two other cities in the top 40 experienced a sharper rise in murder rates, according to FBI crime statistics.
But if the cause of more murders in Philadelphia is the lack of yet more gun control, why isn't murder increasing in the rest of Pennsylvania? Pittsburgh saw just a 7 percent increase.
Why haven't murder rates gone up in the rest of the country? Should Phoenix, the city closest in size to Philadelphia, claim that its murder rate remained virtually unchanged for the last five years because of the supposed lack of new gun control? How should Dallas explain its 24 percent drop in murder?
It is not that guns are more likely to be used in Philadelphia murders, either. The proportion of murders involving guns is similar to that of other cities.
It would appear that Philadelphia's problems have something to do with Philadelphia, not the lack of more gun control coming out of Washington or Harrisburg.
Could it be that Philadelphia simply isn't doing such a great job at law enforcement? Since 2001, Philadelphia's arrest rate for murder has fallen by 20 percent, according to the Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reporting System. Nationally, and among cities with more than 250,000 people, arrest rates have remained virtually unchanged. It isn't so surprising that Philly's murder rate has gone up more than in other cities. After all, criminals are getting away with murder in Philadelphia.
Sure, Philadelphia has slightly fewer police than it had in 2001, but that drop is no different from the small drop that has occurred nationally. What is different is that Philadelphia has experienced a significant drop in arrests per officer relative to the rest of the country.
But it is not just a problem of police. The city is seeing lower conviction rates, and it is not keeping criminals in jail for very long. One could make up for this difference by hiring more police - research has shown the number of police officers to be the main factor in reducing crime. But Philadelphia's problem is how it uses the police it has.
Pointing to more gun-control laws as the solution is simply a way for politicians to pass the blame. Besides, such proposals offer little hope for actually reducing the murder rate. They've all been tried before, from one-gun-a-month limits and reporting stolen guns to the ultimate catchall - letting Philadelphia pass its own gun laws again.
Take the law that seems to be Rendell's favorite: the one-gun-a-month purchase rule. It would reduce the number of gun shows in the state by about 25 percent and shut some stores. But since just a fraction of one percent of criminals with guns get their weapons at gun shows, there would be few benefits from those restrictions. Collectors or those who might legitimately want to get more than one gun at a time are the ones who are inconvenienced. In fact, no published academic study by criminologists or economists shows that such limits reduce violent crime.
The sooner local politicians stop playing politics in the state Capitol and realize that the problem lies in the city's low rate of solving crimes, the sooner the problem will be under control. After all, Philadelphia's current gun laws are similar to those of many others around the country.
What is not the same? In Philadelphia, criminals are less likely to answer for their crimes.
They breed faster than they die?
Totally disagree. Under Eddie, taxes escalated steadily. Essential services such as snow removal weren't delivered in the clogged streets of the neighborhoods, but they were in Center City, where the lawyer and doctor class just got richer.
“Are the firearms laws in PA very strict?”
No, they are actually pretty lax. We do need a castle doctrine law that died in committe last year. The problem is the politicians in Philly are trying to make us have more strict gun laws. Fortunately, the rest of the state is against it. As the article noted, here in Pittsburgh we do not have all of the shooting deaths and crime problem they have in Philly.
This is a big hunting and firearm owning state. Our state constitution is even more explicit than the second amendment on owning firearms for self protection. I have been proposing for a long time that we cut Philly loose from the rest of the state. Possibly give them to New Jersey or Delaware. It would make this a red state and things would be a lot better here.
Not disputing this... I am simply talking about the risk of getting shot or mugged if you were out and about. While taxes did go up, the city was still a safe place to be (aside from west and north philly of course).
Essential services such as snow removal weren't delivered in the clogged streets of the neighborhoods
With regards to snow removal, there are many old, very narrow streets in Philadelphia which won't allow for a snowplow to pass, especially when there are cars parked on the street. I am pretty certain that John Street doesn't plow these either.
Actually, I think that officers can be better used if they just let the gang bangers take each other out. It may increase the number of murders, but that will only last so long. Eventually all the gang members will be dead so the numbers will drop. It will also reduce the number of repeat offenders, eventually.
It works both ways. Why should the police stop it or the courts stop it? Job security and justification for more union jobs and bureaucracy is easier when there is a never ending war on crime, drugs or whatever.
I have to disagree. I lived in Philly when Rendell was mayor. My husband grew up there. I was still working in Philly when the much-heralded John Timoney was police chief. There has always been a lot of crime there. I don't believe there's a law, a mayor, or a police chief that can ever stop it.
We have a date on Friday night and we WILL discuss this article.
I lived in Philly from about 88 to 97 and consider it my hometown, having become a man there.
We had three break-ins in our place on 47th Street on Baltimore Ave in West Philly. ONe time, I was about 10-11 and I had stayed up late the night before and so slept quite soundly. When I woke up, I was freezing and went out to the kitchen (adjacent to my bedroom) and the kitchen window was open and a big kitchen knife was on the table. The crackhead who stole our microwave (and nothing else, that we could tell) had the knife out in case any of us came out. Who knows what would have happened had I wandered out there.
When we moved just a couple blocks down to 45th Street, we never had a break-in attempt but Philly is much less safer than Seattle. Seattle is a relative paradise of safety in comparison and not just in murder stats.
John R. Lott Jr., author of "More Guns, Less Crime" rarely disappoints the reader.
It’s easier to blame “the gun.” Unlike some, the gun is not incompetent.
TMI dude
Give them to New Jersey. Not Delaware. We have enough of our own problems.
no way... we already have camden!
ping
You’re hilarious.
I thought I’d change up “the grew up” part or “formative years” or whatever other synonymous expression.
I’ve been setting myself up a lot recently.
I don't think the founding fathers of Philadelphia had this kind of thing in mind for its future..
Yep. I had first hand experience of this driving home from work. I was driving a long the same path that I have for the past few years when a group of, ahem, young men stopped and surrounded the lead car in the line of traffic that I was in. I was three or so cars behind but I saw two of the young men reach into the car as the driver raised his hands to his shoulder height. Fortunately a few seconds later, another young man riding a four wheeler approached the group and (from what I surmise) warned them that the police were nearby. The group casually dispersed, essentially resuming their positions leaning against the cars parked along the road and shuffling along the sidewalk. Immediately thereafter, the lead car sped off, with the rest of us right behind him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.