From the Philadelphia Weekly:
In case there was any doubt, Chris-Anne Smith, the moderator of a panel discussion on gun violence last Saturday at the African American Museum, started the conversation by rattling off last year’s grim statistics:
Three hundred eighty people were murdered in Philadelphia.
This represents a 15 percent increase from 2004.
Eighty percent of the victims died from bullet wounds.
Eighty-two percent of the victims were black males.
Most of the killers were black males.
Forty-five percent of the victims were 25 or younger.
None of these murder victims died over spring break in Aruba. None of them were on their honeymoon in a cruise ship in the Mediterranean. Not a single one of them received attention from Dan Abrams, Rita Cosby, Larry King, or Greta Van Sustern.
And I think the lack of attention is of critical importance. The general public is simply unaware that murderous crime is up 15% in Philadelphia. And so long as the public is unaware of the problem there will be no support for attempting to address the problem.
The City of Philadelphia is very limited in what it can do to limit access to guns. Even Pennsylvania is limited in what it can do. Only a national plan can have any real hope of being effective.
There are several obstacles to developing a national plan, not least of which is the GOP control of the federal government. Most people do not live in a community where there is over a murder a day. They do not live with gun violence. If they don’t see it on television, then they are unlikely to consider it a problem that needs a solution.
Another problem is with the demographics. Eighty-two percent of the victims in Philadelphia last year were black males. Too many people assume the victim was a victim of gang-on-gang violence, and they have little empathy. What better way to humanize the victims of these crimes than to interview their grandmothers, their girlfriends, their schoolmates, and co-workers.
Lou Dobbs has an hour-long program on CNN, Monday thru Friday. He has discussed illegal immigration on his show nearly every day for over a year. I don’t know if this is an effective way to get good ratings. But, if someone would dedicate that same effort to the problem of urban gun violence it might begin to educate the general public about the urgent need for some kind of handgun control.
When I complain about the obsessive coverage of missing white girls on cable television it isn’t because I have anything against the Natalie Holloways of the world. What bothers me is that there are young, attractive black girls going missing in the nation’s cities everyday.
What the media chooses (not) to cover has as big of an effect on the national discourse as how they choose to cover those stories.
The Democrats have wisely decided to put gun control very low on their list of priorities. The issue is toxic in large swaths of the country. It’s a deadly topic in rural Pennsylvania. But people continue to die in the cities, and if the media would cover that fact we might be able to begin a new dialogue about possible solutions.
Can you fix the PW link? It’s not working.
done, thanks.
It took 21 bloggers from around the Philly area [myself included], with the help of big wigs Atrios, All Spin Zone, Suburban Guerrilla among others to get the story out about Latoyia Figueroa over the summer. A pregnant, young, attracive, black female went missing. Nancy Grace was busy in Aruba.
I’m not saying that rich people who can afford to take a trip to Aruba or elsewhere should not get media attention. But when everyone else goes missing, isn’t it the responsibility of our media to get the word out and help? The Philly area bloggers did a phenomenal job getting this out to a national level.
Will alternative media be the lone space where non-rich people will find help?
you are right. There was one case that got some coverage, and it was only because of people like you. I met the father of Latoyia when he came to visit the family of my neighbors, whose daughter was killed in the crossfire of a Asian drug gang shootout.
They put a picture of Latoyia up in their window, but they found her dead body a couple days later.
Do not blame the guns for the violence caused by the oppressive poverty in the cities. Crime in the city – change the economics of the cities and get people clean living conditions and healthcare.
Getting into gun control issues will continue to cost Democrats well after hell freezes over. And I will not support gun control with the exception of assault rifles.
To go Ed Schultz on this diary – I am gun toting, red meat eating, liberal.
that’s the political reality.
we can outlaw guns in philly, we can ban the sale of guns, we can require a training program, we can do anything we want, and it won’t keep guns out of the hands of children.
Only a national law could begin to do that, and most communities do not see the need, and are not willing to put up with the hassle to their schedule or the “invasion” of their privacy that a real effort would entail.
But, we should at least have a media that covers the problem.
The issue you are trying to address is Media and it’s lack of coverage on inner city crime or crimes against people of color – versus coverage of white people.
That is a valid issue and should be addressed on its merits.
Bringing guns into the debate is a hot button issue. I’d bet that 90% or more of the people on this site are in favor of gun control. And being part of the 10% that will fight against it I’ll argue that you want media attention on crimes – leave the guns out of it.
Crimes – without guns….
In SF recently we had a woman who through her kids in to SF Bay.
Another that walked a child on to railroad tracks to get hit by a train.
A white kid that stabbed a prominent defense attorney’s wife.
Sorry – guns aren’t the issue – media coverage of the crimes AND stick to the meme.
support the more traditional type of gun control that have been pushed in the past.
Here is what I think:
Handguns create a fingerprint on the bullet that can be traced back. For a national law I would like to see every handgun that is sold have that fingerprint registered, in advance, with the FBI. And I would like to have a national registration data base.
If your gun gets stolen or lost, you should promptly report that fact. If you sell it, you should report that.
This would provide a lead in most shootings. It would force people to be responsible gun owners, because they will be responsible if their gun is used in a crime.
This is not a restriction on gun ownership. It is a deterrent to criminals, it would limit the loose exchange of weapons, and it is a powerful investagatory tool.
Now, is it political palatable? No. It’s not. And the lack of media coverage is a big part of the reason why. So, that is why I link the two.
and an uncle that was a gunsmith….
Gun fingerprinting – with the FBI: it would take me about 10 minutes to change the finger print and it would have taken my uncle about 2 minutes. Only because it would take me that long to figure out my husband’s drill press and bits.
Responsible gun owners already register their weapons, we report them when sold, and we have gun locks or safes.
The problem is that existing laws are not enforced…regarding gun shows, pawn shops in most states (CA is ruthless on paperwork), hell even Wal-Mart in most states is very loose on gun paperwork.
Media doesn’t care – and never will – about gun control. Go back and look at the lapsed assault weapon ban – the most politically palatable control there was. Media didn’t care.
Don’t blame the guns and gun owners…most of us are responsible and law abiding…and tired of getting wrapped up in this fight.
And just what will a national law accomplish other than keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens?
Any such a law certainly will not keep them out of the hands of those doing the murdering in Philly.
the elimination of all guns, but I would like to know who has them…meaning let’s register them, and go after the folks who use unregistered guns in the commission of a crime.
And in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, let all those who wish to own guns be willing to participate in a “well-regulated militia”, meaning monthly training classes in proper care and usage. Maybe an adjunct to the National Guard, but one that couldn’t be co-opted by the government and sent overseas…
Most of the people that I know regularly participate in target practice at authorized firing ranges.
They are also almost all former cops, former military, or current law enforcement from cops to judges.
Registered guns – yes and no…..
I’ll play devils advocate that only good guys register guns. In about 20 minutes time I can drive into SF or Oakland or San Jose and get an unregistered gun….for the right amount of cash. Or I can cross the border into Oregon or Nevada and get an unregistered one at a local gun show.
Only new guns or gun sales are required to be registered under existing laws. With the current administration do you really expect people that don’t trust govt to begin with to register their older guns?
This summer I will be travelling in NV, OR, and Idaho….and will seriously consider getting a couple of unregistered rifles…just because. And I won’t feel bad about it. When the wingnuts take over I don’t want them to be the only ones armed.
I seem to recall some claims that gun deaths in urban areas per capita are higher, but not extremely higher, than their counterparts in the burbs and rural areas. The city meme seems instinctually right, but do the stats support it? Anybody have the real numbers?
In any case, I’ve been an anti-gun kinda guy for many years. Now I’ve begun to pay more attention to the arguments of the libertarian side of the anti-control crowd. With the advent of Bush’s fascist coup, the idea of a well-armed citizenry has taken on some credibility. If talk and votes no longer work in a dying democracy, maybe that’s going to be the final solution. I still hate guns and what they do, but political reality may demand some rethinking.
Chicago, my town, has had a gun ban for decades. That didn’t stop us from being the “murder capital of the nation” just a couple years ago. As Boo says, one city, even one state, cannot do much to stop the flow of weapons. Maybe it’s time to look for another approach.
For example, a ban on all weapons except .22 pistols or rifles holding no more than 6 shots, coupled with fierce enforcement, draconian punishment, and double jail time for crimes involving illegal weapons. Plus a commitment to downsize police weapons if and when the ban starts making a difference. Such a stand, promoted full-out by the Dems, would make NRA-style arguments much harder to sustain and much easier to refute — maybe anybody that can’t get their deer with a simple .22 has no business with any gun at all.
But of course the Dems couldn’t possibly consider such an idea — somebody might get mad at them.
I think guns are mainly an urban problem. Obviously people kill each other everywhere, and children can get ahold of a gun from their parents in any community.
So, that’s a problem.
But other than random outbreaks of school shooting sprees, it is very rare for innocent bystanders to get hit by gunfire.
I grew up in a town where there was one murder in the 17 years it took me graduate from high school.
There are bullets whizzing around my neighborhood in Philly a couple nights a week.
Because most gunshot victims refuse to discuss who shot them it is hard to gauge how many innocent (unintended) people are getting shot. But there are a few each week that get hit in the foot or ass just walking down the street.
When you live in that environment it puts the issue of other’s liberties in a different light.
In my opinion, gun control should be handled locally. Each community has a different tolerance for guns. I also don’t think my right to own a gun should be taken away. I don’t own a gun, but I am considering whether I should have one for my own safety. What I would like to see, is a national policy that requires registration, chamber-printing, and some proficiency requirement for handgun ownership.
I would ask the good people of, say, Nebraska, to please tolerate this hassle that they see no need for, in order to make my life safer and more tolerable.
What I would like to see, is a national policy that requires registration, chamber-printing, and some proficiency requirement for handgun ownership.
These all make sense. But then I start thinking about the whole car insurance, inspection, registration thing, and how easy it is to beat that system if you live in the city. Not to mention the time back in the 1990s when I had someone come walking into my
yard (in a Philly neighborhood) with a pillowcase full of guns for sale. That guy got arrested within 15 minutes, but how many others don’t?
for bystanders to get hit in the “urban wilderness” (I prefer that term to the usual “urban jungle” because it lacks the racial connotation of the latter). Happens a lot in East Palo Alto, East San Jose, and other locales here in the Bay Area…
I think this might be what you’re referring to: Link
Being shot by others is mainly an urban problem. And if you’re a non-white, the media will just mention the shooting in passing, show a little footage of the cops picking up casings in the street and your family crying that day, and go no further. After all, we still have to give airtime to Natalee Holloway’s mother, 8 months later. (Not to be unkind, I’m sorry for her loss, but enough already.)
that when martial law comes after the next terrorist attack that the only people with guns will be republicans and inner city criminals?
i think we all need to arm ourselves…and be smart about it.
and punish people who arent responsible.
To quote Eminem [Who Knew]:
So who’s bringin the guns in this country? /
I couldn’t sneak a plastic pellet gun through customs over in London /
And last week, I seen a Schwarzaneggar movie where he’s shootin all sorts of these motherferkers with a uzi /
I sees three little kids, up in the front row, screamin “Go,” with their 17-year-old Uncle /
I’m like, “Guidance – ain’t they got the same moms and dads who got mad when I asked if they liked violence?” /
And told me that my tape taught ’em to swear /
What about the make-up you allow your 12-year-old daughter to wear?
—
This is definitely, as Booman states, a national issue that cannot simply be handled locally in each city or town.
boo wrote;
“What bothers me is that there are young, attractive black girls going missing in the nation’s cities everyday.”
yeah man can you imagine how bad it is for the old, butt ugly black chicks?
if i remember correctly during the seth williams campaign there was discussion about a police dept somewhere that searched everybody in neighborhoods during routine traffic stops etc….and took their guns….didnt charge them with anything cause that would probably get thrown out….but they never got their guns back cause well they didnt even ask for their guns back…most were illegal…..and gun crime did go down in that city….i think there were other ideas bandied about like the neighborhood prosecutors etc….i believe there really are ways to cut these stats down but city officials lack the creativity, competence, and will to do what it takes…and i say that as someone who used to work for the city and the effects of incompetence, lack of creativity and lack of political will to get something positive accomplished every freaking day.
First, I will go ahead and outrage you all by pointing out that the 4th amendment of the US constitution acknowledges the right of the people to bear arms.
So unless that amendment is repealed, simply “outlawing guns” is not an option.
There are all kinds of gun laws on the books, registration, types of guns that can be legally borne, etc.
But what causes the tragedies listed in the diary, and countless others, is not due to the 4th amendment.
Those tragedies are the social costs of a host of other policies that have nothing to do with guns themselves, and everything to do with the culture of violence and poverty.
Guns in the hands of children have to do with parents who are not doing their job as parents, whether that is because they are forced to work 3 jobs, or whether they are just stupid people who cannot manage to keep their guns out of the reach of children, or whether they have untreated mental illness, substance abuse, whatever the reason, the victims are equally dead.
You can question whether parents of small children should have guns in the home at all, and you can make a good argument that it is a stupid idea.
However, there are many people who have small children, who do have guns in the home, and the small children either do not know the guns are there, cannot gain access to them, or know that they are not playthings or things to be touched at all.
And there are also many parents who have other objects in their homes that can maim and kill, and the same conditions and results apply. The obvious and popular example, knives. There are kids who get hold of knives and hurt or kill themselves and/or others, and it is not because the home contained knives, end of story.
While the 4th amendment itself, the right to bear arms, is not necessarily an indication of the breakdown of the social fabric, and certainly the profitability of arms of all kinds is neither new or unique to US, the culture of guns, the ubiquitousness and popularity of guns, the conditions and culture of hopeless poverty that breeds violence and not only homes, but entire neighborhoods that are no place for children any more than refugee camps in Palestine are, IS an indication of the breakdown of the social fabric, a sign of a failed state, a feudal state, and the resultant deaths, not to mention the danger of death and injury to people NOT of the underclass, is a social cost that affluent Americans have consistently agreed to pay for generations.
that arithmetic is bad for you anyway.
nerdified link
just from a different direction….
Practicing constitutional law without a license…oh wait…that’s what Bush is doing….