|
|
|
guns
Jordan Brown's case is one of the more fascinating and complicated criminal matters to be heard in Pennsylvania... well, ever. And things will continue to get interesting today.
As the Inky noted via the Associated Press this morning: "A Superior Court panel in Pittsburgh must decide whether a boy who was 11 at the time should be tried as an adult in the slaying of his father's pregnant fiancee."
Which deserves some added information:
In February 2009, when Jordan was 11, his father's girlfriend, Kenzie Houk, was found murdered with a shotgun wound to the head. Investigators concluded that she had been shot while she slept. This took place about an hour's drive north of Pittsburgh in a rural farmhouse she shared with her boyfriend, one of her daughters, and Jordan.
It took local cops a short time to investigate and gather that Jordan -- whose father had purchased him a shotgun not long earlier -- had committed the act. Though he denied it -- and continues to deny it -- Jordan was incarcerated and held for trial. Last year, a judge concluded (here's the PDF) that the 11-year-old would be tried as an adult for murder. The judge's rationale: Jordan's refusal to admit guilt showed that he was not sorry for what he did and therefore liable for murder as an adult. (Jordan's lawyers have since countered that this decision doesn't make much sense -- and that's pretty much what today's hearing is about).
Admission or not, this is unheard of in most other states. Earlier this month, for example, a 10-year old in Ohio committed an eerily similar crime. There was zero talk of adult time in that case because in Ohio, a 10-year-old is a child.
In Pennsylvania, however, things aren't so clear. Human Rights Watch has pointed out that the Keystone State sentences hundreds more kids to life in prison than any other state in the country (and more than most other states in the country combined). So in Pennsylvania an 11-year-old may not be a child in the eyes of the law. He or she may be an adult. And adults get harsh sentences: If Jordan is convicted, he'll face a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. He'll be the youngest person in recorded history to receive that sentence.
The hearing today will get to that. And it'll also begin the process of answering the following question:
Is an 11-year-old liable for murder as an adult in Pennsylvania?
Amnesty International is all over it. (They think Jordan Brown should be tried as a juvenile). And so is Kenzie Houk's family. (They think the kid should die in prison.)
A panel will hear arguments today and eventually make a decision. One way or the other, that decision -- which will take months, as these types of proceedings tend to -- will have a massive impact on juvenile criminal law nationwide.
Peripheral info:
* It's unconstitutional to sentence anyone to death if that person committed a crime before he or she turned 18.
* It's also unconstitutional to sentence anyone to life in prison without the possibility of parole if that person committed a non-homicide offense before he or she turned 18.
* Read the whole Jordan Brown story -- and more about his innocence claim --Â here.
* Read about SCI Pine Grove, the institution Jordan will serve time in if he's convicted.
* Read the brief written by Jordan's attorneys and Marsha Levick, Deputy Director and Chief Counsel of the Philadelphia Juvenile Law Center, in favor of trying Jordan as a juvenile.
* Read the "Save Jordan Brown" website here. That site was created by Dan Dailey, who blogs here and consistently breaks more news about this case than pretty much anyone.
UPDATE from the hearing:
*Â WTAE Pittsburgh (with video): "'My daughter is not coming back,' Kenzie Houk's mother, Deborah, told reporters outside court on Tuesday. 'My two little girls lost a mother, and a brother they waited on, so what gives you the right to think that he can walk away?'"
* Guardian UK: "The US is the only country where juveniles are serving life imprisonment without parole under the so-called 'life means life' policy. Only the US and Somalia have refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which rules out life sentences with no chance of release for crimes committed before the age of 18."
[...] UPDATED: Will an 11-year-old get life in prison for murder? Here's … [...]
[...] UPDATED: Will an 11-year-old get life in prison for murder? Here's … [...]
[...] UPDATED: WіƖƖ аn 11-year-ancient ɡеt life іn prison fοr murder? ... [...]
[...] UPDATED: Will an 11-year-old get life in prison for murder? Here's ... [...]
[...] UPDATED: Will an 11-year-old get life in prison for murder? Here's … [...]
[...] UPDATED: Will an 11-year-old get life in prison for murder? Here's … [...]
[...] UPDATED: Will an 11-year-old get life in prison for murder? Here's … [...]
[...] UPDATED: Will an 11-year-old get life in prison for murder? Here's … [...]
[...] UPDATED: Will an 11-year-old get life in prison for murder? Here's … [...]
[...] tastes. Personalized birthday gifts add a little elegance and lots of appeal that is sure to please year after year. And a simple present can become a cherished possession just by adding one, two, or [...]
[...] not to say that everything out there is capable of being beaten but keeping a good outlook on life in general can do tremendous amount of good for your psyche which will directly affect how your [...]
[...] UPDATED: Will an 11-year-old get life in prison for murder? Here's … [...]
[...] gave him a fountain pen with his name engraved on it last year so I can’t do the same this year. Anyone have any [...]
[...] by adrianbld8: How would we work out a approaching rate of return upon a life insurance policy? How we found it, formula [...]
Are you idiotically insinuating that his teachers are somehow responsible because they didn't pay enough attention to this misbegotten son? Spend some time in a public middle school in your town and see what teachers do with the children never corrected or held accountable at home. Sometimes, school is the only place where a kid is safe, fed, and cared for. Parents need to "go to school" and be held accountable for the behaviors of their misguided offspring.
Not really sure how i feel about this situation sounds to me that this child needs help not life in prison and i guess my question is how many things had to go horribly wrong in an 11 yrs life for something like this to happen i have a 12 yr old son and i am far from a perfect parent but he is not a bad child and i can't imagine what this would feel like if my son had done something like this but for an 11 yr old to be so far gone as too kill some one tells me that some parenting was defintely lacking
I know it's hard to not see an 11 year old kid as anything but an 11 year old kid, but if he is in fact guilty, he's damaged goods. There's no helping that. Regardless of what the afterschool specials tell you, there are some things that you can't undo and must pay the price for until you die. Taking a shotgun to a sleeping woman's head, a pregnant one at that, is not something you can 'get over' or 'be cured of'. He's old enough to have decided that he didn't want to share the world with her, and act on that decision. That makes him old enough to rot in a 6x10 cage for 8 or 9 decades.
[...] yo facing life in prison w/o parole for a crime he may or may not have committed Will an 11-year-old get life in prison for murder? Here’s what you need to know :: The Clog ::... My hubby and me are at odds about this. He says, "some people are born without a conscience. [...]
"The judge's rationale: Jordan's refusal to admit guilt showed that he was not sorry for what he did." Presumption of Guilt without proof in trial, your 'Honor'. Keep a close watch on the evidence in the trial guys, this one's gonna be chock full of song and dance.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Astrid and Matt Muir, Philadelphia. Philadelphia said: Will an 11-year-old get life in prison? Hereâs what you need to know.: Jordan Brownâs legal si... http://t.jfm.tv/gitUdE #CitypaperBlogs [...]
Its time as society that we realize we need to change the def of what it means to be a child. This "kid" knowingly took a shotgun and killed a person in their sleep! He knew right from wrong and he choose to do the wrong thing. Again he knowingly took another life, he made the deision to pull the trigger. I believe that once you take a life no longer have value has a person, you no longer contribution to society itself. I think anyone who willingly hurts/ kills another human being should no longer have rights. Why shouldn't this kid die in jail? At 11 he his taken another life there is no rehab for that. He should be glad life in prison is all he can get. Had he been an adult he should be tried for the death pentaly. Along with ANY person that KNOWINGLY takes another life thats not in self-defence.
>>> I believe that once you take a life no longer have value has a person, you no longer contribution to society itself. So you're saying once a person is a soldier they are valueless? This kind of hyperbole has no place in a rational debate. You should simply retract your comment out of respect for those who had to make a choice. Let's be clear, this is a child, are children adults? Do we expect them to make adult decisions? No we don't. The actions of the court to elevate this to an adult court are reprehensible. The presumption of guilt on the part of the court is even worse. Why is this even going forward.
Man, I worry about America a lot. I'm writing here from Ireland, where I've experienced our own civil war in the North of the island and the ongoing gangland crime in Dublin. I'm not suggesting we're perfect. Let's get that out of the way. My other half is American. We've talked about moving there. I'm not keen at all. Why? This case is why, or rather it illustrates my two main reasons. Firstly, gun law. In this part of the world, it is not considered legal or civilised to have a gun unless you have a damn good reason for it. Want to hunt? You better apply to the police, get a licence from them (not easy) and have secure places to store it. Kids don't get guns, period. I cannot comprehend what you guys are thinking letting kids have unlicensed guns. Don't quote me your constitution. I know it just as well as you do. It was written hundreds of years ago, long before comprehensive law enforcement. It doesn't reflect today's reality. You might love your right to bear arms, but you got to realise that's why you have many times the homicide rate of Canada, a similarly cultured nation just to your North, populated by pretty similar people. Second reason? You're going to try a 13 year old as an adult with the possibility of life without parole? Seriously? I don't care if he massacred Jesus and all the innocents, and you got video tape to prove it. That is beyond inhumane. Let's say the boy did it. Let's say he whacked his stepmom. That's horrific. But tell me what the purpose of your justice system is? Is it to rehabilitate people to become useful members of society or is it to punish the evil? What man under God can be sure in his judgement? Better we facilitate the possibility of innocence even when we deliver a guilty verdict, better that we permit the possibility of rehabilitating errant children who kill. There are a number of British cases which shed light on this. Let's look at one. The Jamie Bulger killers - one rehabilitated successfully, the other was recently locked up again as an adult on child porn charges. Yeah, rehabilitation doesn't always work. But it worked for one of these kids. That's the important thing. This dead woman and her dead baby aren't coming back under any circumstances. The only person that can be saved at this point in time is this kid Jordan. This kid may be innocent. Certainly there needs to be greater effort into investigating the man who threatened to kill this woman before she died. Then again, he may be guilty. But he's no adult. He is below the age of responsibility for his actions. If he's guilty, he was horrendously wrong. He'll live in horror of it all his life. Does he deserve no chance of redemption, of forgiveness? While your great country continues to permit guns for all without attributing responsibility to ownership, and while it then turns around and seeks to prosecute children as adults and throw them away like trash, I could never live in your country. I'm sorry to say, but that isn't civilised.
In America, a person is supposed to be innocent until proven, beyond doubt, guilty. Because the judge stated the boy should be tried in adult court because he wouldn't admit to the crime says that judge needs a new job and that boy should be free to go home. This boy has waited nearly 2 years for a trial! And it wasn't his defense asking for all the continuances, it has been the prosecution. If they had enough evidence to convict this boy, they would have gone to trial already. Children at the age of 11 do not have a true concept of what death really is, not to mention their brains haven't even stopped developinng yet, so I don't have a clue how anyone can think a child should ever stand trial as if they were an adult. I agree 100% that children (minors) should NEVER be allowed to have guns, and any adult who does not lock up their guns if they have children in the house is just a very irresponsible person.
Are you out of your fucking mind?
Just because someone is charged with a crime doesn't mean they are guilty of it; just because a person is alleged to have committed a crime in the media doesn't mean they did it. This child should be tried or released. Holding him indefinitely is cruel. I've read everything I can find on the web about this case and I can't find anything about his shotgun. Was it found? Had it been fired? Is it, indeed, the murder weapon?
I'm genuinely sickened by this comment. So you're the same person at 11 that you are at 21? This kid is exactly that, a kid. He deserves to be locked up until he's well into his 20's then allowed to be slowly reintergrated into decent society as a normal human being. Yes, what he did (if he did it and I understand there is little proof that he is guilty) is absolutely wrong and yes he needs to be severely punished. But to lock a child away for life? To me that's about as wrong as you can get...why don't you just kill him and take his life now? Sick sick sick
I don't get all of this.. so if he is to be treated like an adult, i hope they give him the right to marry, to vote and so on. for him and for all 11 years old children. since they obviously can think for themselves... and be treated like adults.
It seems odd that the judge wants him tried as an adult because he won't admit guilt, but is presumed innocent until the trial. Go figure.
I live in ellwood city,Pa. 1 town away from where this evil little monster killed the girl and her son...there IS evidence he did it...maybe we should send him to live w/you...he gets pissed off...bye bye
Well, I guess he got his Daddies attention now. Too bad its only once week during their visit.
[...] Jordan Brown’s case is one of the more fascinating and complicated criminal matters to be heard in Pennsylvania… well, ever. And things will continue to get interesting today. As the Inky noted via the Associated Press this morning : “A Superior Court … read full article… [...]
Wow, you mind as well trash the entire juvenile legal system. By your rational, a person under 21 should be allowed to drink if they're mature and understand the ramifications. What about a 13 year old girl who wants to have sex with a 50 year old man? If she is really mature should it be OK? Or does it only work were the state can declare you mature for their own benefit? If this ruling stands it will set an extremely dangerous precedence. One, the judge and prosecutor are violating the defendants constitutional rights by attempting to compelling him to incriminate himself by "showing remorse" for a crime he hasn't even been tried for, let alone convicted. Second, it will allow judges to basically create ad hoc law by simply "declaring" that a child is an adult without any legal reasoning to backup the ruling.
What I'd like to know is what any 11 year old child is doing with 6 guns in their bedroom?
I just want to say I think this summary is well done; I wasn't aware of this case and I'm glad to be. Thanks for the clear-headed introduction to a case I'm now going to follow with great interest. I shudder to think about a child this young being imprisoned for the rest of his life. What life?
The kid's own dad bought him the shotgun. Let me repeat that: The murder weapon was given to the 11 year old child by his own father. If the kid was a monster, as you argue, then the kid needed counseling, child protective services, maybe a teacher at school to pay attention to him, or at worst juvenile detention. What he got instead was a deadly weapon. The same kind he's probably used in his video games that probably served as his babysitter for 11 years. Parents need to take some responsibility for their child rearing, and if they do not, then the community needs to. I don't know this kid, I don't live near him, and I don't know any of the circumstances of this case apart from what's been reported. I do know that an 11 year old has a much different capacity to make rational decisions, and also a very pliable mind with the capacity to change. Unlike the jaded, heartless cynics on this thread.
The biggest issue with this case, and what differentiates it from the Ohio case referenced in the article, is sentencing laws. If he deserves to be locked up 'well into his 20's' then he MUST be tried as an adult under PA law... because the juvy justice system in PA stops on the 21st birthday. Jordan Brown's birthday is in August (other articles reference this), which means that on that day in August 2019 when he turns 21 a couple things happen. - He gets released from detention/prison. - His juvenile court records are sealed permanently. - He has no criminal record as an adult. Nothing to show on a background check, credit report, or anything else. On that day, he could go out an buy a car, a new gun, ammo, whatever else... no record, no need to answer questions, and no way to check because of the juvy conviction.
Many other sources reference a refusal to accept responsibility for his actions... taking someone's book, disobeying the teacher, missing homework. The articles back then said he always had someone to blame for everything.
 |
| PW |
I don't do hit pieces for the sake of it, and I don't relish at all taking shots at my colleagues and fellow writers around town.
And I don't know, or have any personal beef whatsoever with Jon Campisi, the author of this week's Philadelphia Weekly cover story, Who's Packin' Heat in Philly.
But to call that story half-baked would be generous ... and I won't be generous: It's one of the most irresponsible uses of ink and bandwidth this fair city has seen in a while.
I say this not because I am critical of the story's subjects (although I am), who not only proclaim the joys of walking around packing heat themselves, but actively promote casual gun use among others and oppose attempts to curb it (including opposing attempts to take guns away from people who let them get stolen from their cars).
Not because I think the topic isn't relevant, or the author's subjects don't merit journalistic exploration (it is, and they do).
Not because I think gun ownership or use is inherently wrong (I don't).
Not just because of the silly glorification of the authors' subjects "He wears his gun as well as he rocks his navy blazer," or the obtuse quotes "For me, guns become very academic," and "It's kind of hard to practice Buddhism when you're dead," and fawning, unquestioning representations of their opinions: "Dillon understands how guns can be demonized in a city like Philadelphia ... but he says it's important not to blame an inanimate object for society's problems."
Not just because the author used the phrase "so-called 'assault rifles'" as if the very idea of semi-automatic weapons being made for the purpose of killing were absurd.
But because this is bad reporting.
And if you want to do bad reporting, don't do it about something as serious as handguns.
I won't go point by point, but here are a few particularly low moments:
"One might expect police officers who see rampant gun violence everyday to be offended that people are looking to protect themselves. But a canvassing of city streets shows they're the first to admit they can't be everywhere at once. One Northwest Philly bike cop who spoke anonymously says he sees absolutely nothing wrong with a citizen carrying a handgun for protection."
After "canvassing of city streets," the author produces two comments, one from one anonymous police officer, the other from one Captain William Fisher, who merely says, "I really don't think it matters what our feelings are ... you have a right to bear arms" a statement of fact, not opinion, and by no means a ringing endorsement of packing casually.
What the reporter neglects to say is that urban police forces in Philadelphia and elsewhere have been vocal supporters of tighter restrictions on handguns, with Chief Ramsey joining mayor Nutter in efforts to institute tighter gun laws here.
Including laws regarding straw purchases, an incredibly important part of gun control which the author barely mentions, burying the single reference in a long sentence leading up to Captain Fisher's lukewarm comment:
During an April rally in front of the Shooter Shop in Kensington, where religious protesters gathered to decry urban gun violence, and specifically call for firearm dealers to sign a code of conduct that would aim to cut down on straw purchases (the act of someone who can legally buy a gun doing so for a prohibited person), another police officer said ...
Huh? What was that you said about straw purchases?
That an article about urban gun-use would skip so lightly over straw purchasing which, according to the city's figures, accounts for a whopping 46 percent of all guns used in Philly crimes is bad enough.
But also unmentioned in the article are the number of stolen and illegal guns recovered annually by Philadelphia police alone (more than 5,000); the unintended consequences of handgun use, like the fact that American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries; or a slew of other reasons to consider tougher gun laws.
This is the kind of lazy that borders on propaganda.
Speaking of which, how about this whopper:
"[Gun enthusiast David Laden] compiled statistics that showed a drastic drop in Philadelphia murder rates between 1990 (503 homicides) and 2001 (309 homicides) which coincided with the issuance of a greater number of carry licenses for private citizens."
The notion that the issuance of carry licenses somehow caused the decrease in homicides is so laughably absurd I'd be laughing if it wasn't printed in an otherwise respectable magazine's cover story for thousands of people to read.
The declining murder rate also happens to have coincided with the demise of big-hair rock: Correlation, duh, is not causation. Even if Campisi's subjects are too thick to get that, he shouldn't be.
Last is the issue not of accuracy but of taste: in a city where hundreds of people die to gun violence or are assaulted, robbed, raped, or intimidated by people with guns; in a city where police officers are killed by criminals whose guns are sometimes burgled from the likes of Campisi's subjects; and where jackasses keep shooting people on purpose or accidentally for stupid, jackass reasons this article isn't just bad, it's offensive.
Nothing personal.
Cripple Fight!
Amen.
How about not taking the cheap shots at Campisi, Bykofsky, et al., and simply state that you disagree with their positions?
This day's CityPaper post about PW's cover story is bad writing. Sorry. "What the reporter neglects to says" "but a here are a few particularly low moments" "What the reporter neglects to says is" This is the kind of lazy writing that borders on illiteracy. Nothing personal.
Alex, thanks as always for your helpful comments I'm so flattered that you seem to have a web alert for me. And Jen, I don't think I'll get into this more than to say I don't think I take cheap shots at all: I think I take good and careful ones. I even think that's part of my job - as is putting my name, real and true, behind my words. Have a nice weekend, - Isaiah
Isaiah, You make very valid points. I'm just confused how that became the cover story? Didn't anyone else see those issues? And, I apologize for "aLex" being more concerned about typos than the incredibly important content. Thanks for writing this piece, even if it wasn't comfortable to do so. -Ryan
It is no problem at all Isaac. - aLex, not Alex
Alex, as someone so focused with typos... you should capitalize properly.
tHAt'S JusT ThE NamE THEy gAVE mE.
Isaiah, Well said and thank you for posting. One of the biggest issues I had with that time-waster is it ignored the entire reason for the rally. A responsible reporter could (and I might even say bolster his argument for responsible gun-ownership)simply have explained the code of conduct that was presented to the Shooter Shop. Nothing about doing away with guns, or the right to conceal carry (he also failed to mention people were open carrying at the counter-protest) but simply trying to reduce straw purchasing to cut down on the illegal guns on our streets. Which i can only assume everyone involved in the conversation could agree would be helpful.
Wow, you practically rewrote somebody else's article. Good job. Your beef is obviously with illegal guns. But instead of writing about how you could solve that problem, all you do is criticize what the author did or didn't do. Realized or failed to realize. Guess what? Everybody with a brain realizes that guns in bad guys' hands is bad um kay? Campisi recognizes straw purchases as problem with Philadelphia crime. Yet you siht on him for bringing up the subject. Would you rather he not bring it up at all so you can point out that he didn't? I for the life can't see why you wrote this piece. It was not educational or helpful. It actually seemed like you didn't like the fact that this guy got the cover story. You sound a little salty about the whole thing.
You have no anti-gun agenda whatsoever do you Mr. Thomas? You kept repeating "Not because of this, because I don't", then went on and spew a bunch of poorly compiled anti-gun statistics, typical anti-gun statements, agenda-laced finger pointing underneath your journalistic "integrity". Clearly you don't own a gun, don't have a license to carry, don't like guns, and know nothing about gun rights; otherwise, you'd know about the straw purchasing issue and how absurd that protest was. You'd also know that "assault rifle" is a political term intended to malign semi-automatic rifles, made for PROTECTION and sport. You clearly didn't have any problem make a stand on a semi-auto rifle are made "for killing", so let me once again call you out on the fact that you are an anti-gun ignoramus on this stand as well. What does stricter gun laws have anything to do with the article in the first place? What does the PPD and the mayor desire to add more laws to infringe gun rights have to do with the article either? These people are licensed BY THE PPD to carry. You'd know that if you care to even explore the topic, even in the shallowest details. Clearly you were hoping Campisi find someone at the PPD to say "we don't want law abiding citizens to carry because we can be everywhere to protect them" or something equally absurd in your twisted anti-gun mind. No doubt there were some correlation vs. causation arguments there, but they HAVE been shown elsewhere that increased issuance of licenses equals to lower crimes. What makes you think the article's subjects, young professionals, are too thick to see the differences as whatever assertion made were by 1 subject and not all? "Even if Campisi's subjects are too thick to get that, he shouldn't be"...Wow! No intellectual elitism asserted here, is there? Finally, you absurdly blamed the interviewed subjects as a potential source for illegal guns, through burglary of all things. Can we say blaming the victim here? You also hold them responsible for negligence shootings (that's right, if you know anything about guns, there is only NEGLIGENT shooting, no shooting is EVER accidental), then grouped law abiding gun carriers together all in one breath with the cause of "people die to gun violence or are assaulted, robbed, raped, or intimidated by people with guns; ... police officers are killed by criminals whose guns are sometimes burgled from the likes of Campisi's subjects". So Mr.Thomas, you sure don't have any agenda against the topic at all do you sir? Clearly you have no counter arguments to the reasons why these young professional hip urbanites are carrying to protect themselves so you went on with personal attacks instead. The irrational anti-gun elitism, masked as "journalism" is so thin, it's offensive.
My apology for calling Mr.Thompson Mr.Thomas....he's definitely not that tall.
What's there to explain? 8 out of 10 are ALREADY required by law, the other 2 are illegal!!! Why would he need to mention open carry at the counter protest? Campisi happened to find an officer at the protest that went on records to say he doesn't have any problem with citizen's right to carry. He could have found him in front of a Dunkin Donuts...would you have wanted him to tell you what specials they are running that day?
Thomas gets about a 2 out of 10 on his whiney rant.
Thomas/Thompson BFD!
"My apology for calling Mr.Thompson Mr.Thomas .hes definitely not that tall." Hahaha - very true, PW Reader. Listen, I'll just put out there one more time that while I have plenty of criticisms of the gun industry and particular gun policies, I don't have an anti-gun agenda. I have a pro-good reporting agenda. My post was, no doubt, harsh perhaps too harsh, and I certainly don't mean to insult Mr. Campisi personally. I think the initial conceit of his article - that middle-class urbanites are packing, apparently more, - was interesting. But the article also attempts to get into concealed carry as a 'movement,' and that's where I think it is too uncritical and gives its subjects too uncritical an ear, especially for an issue as serious as guns in our city. I understand that good people get guns and use them responsibly. I understand why they'd want to get them. But purchase laws don't always know good from bad or responsible from not, and nearly half the gun crimes in this city are carried about by weapons purchased legally, according to police statistics. What's the answer? I don't know: but to not at least ask that question is, in my opinion, neglectful. And it plays right into the hands of the very powerful and lucrative gun industry. Have a nice holiday weekend, everybody.
Horsepucky Isaac. You saw another paper field 80 comments and appointed yourself Good Reporting Czar with Butterfly Wings. That's okaleedokalee. Summer Guide = compelling literature. -A.O.
Not really a donut guy so the specials would not have appealed to me. The reason I see the explaining the code of conduct is because there is clearly misinformation regarding what the code is asking, what is already law, and the difference between something simply not being required, and something being against existing statute. A simple analogy: Just because it is legal to drive 25 miles down a small back street in the city, doesn't mean it is good practice. Asking your neighbors to agree to only drive 20 out of consideration for the people that live on that small block simply seems like good practice. It is not illegal to ask them to in good faith change their conduct to make the street safer. And when the NRA encourages people to open carry at a counter-protest I happen to think it begs mentioning. Full Disclosure: I do not own a gun, but I would if I had the disposable income. However, most my family (rural Kansas) own multible handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles. Whenever we visit, we head out to one farm or another and spend a great afternoon shooting things. I am decidedly not anti-gun, but have known too many gun-related issues in the city to not think there could be better ways to stem the flow of illegal guns into the hands of criminals who have to do little more than pay someone a small amount of money to go and buy a gun for them. Smply put, there is an illegal gun problem in this city, and legal purchases contribute to that problem. And changes can be made to help slow that flow.
I've spent the last 20 minutes searching for this claim: "Straw purchases account for 46 percent of all guns used in Philly crimes". The percentage itself is a problematic statistical summary. Conviction vs. dismissed charges? Did they exclude the straw purchases themselves for included it in "gun crime" to double up on the number? Most if not all guns were purchased legally in the at some point. The actual figures need to be published and validated without political agenda from the city government itself. In order for the police to know that the gun was a straw purchased, they MUST have known who purchased it in the first place. If they have done their job enforcing straw purchase laws and judges are tough in sentencing the purchasers, do you think the rate would be that high? One of the major issues is the ridiculously light sentences for violators. Why don't people protest in Harrisburg for tougher sentences, in front of judges' houses, parole board's houses, and straw purchaser's houses? Regardless, the PW article had no need to ask the question about straw purchasing anyway, because it's not about gun purchasing. It's about people like me and you, and those who make up a significant part of the city, who carry every day for protection...and know one knows. They are not the straw purchasers, robbers, killers, thugs, like what the media make anyone with a gun out to be. If you and the media believe that guns can be used for good, how come other than the 2007 article cited in this PW article, there have been no other articles portraying gun owners in positive lights until this one? Talk about 1-sided political agenda by the media. Let's talk about the gun industry. The gun industry's total revenue is $3B/year. This includes sales to government and law enforcement agencies. This is the same revenue amount as the exercise equipment manufacturing industry. Compare that to the $700B/year oil industry, $250B/year car industry, $200B/year industrial chemical industry, $40B/year tobacco, $21B/year brewing, $14B/year security system, $90B/year lumber...as a matter of fact, go to Hoovers research and click on Industries tab then "Industries Overview" link. The gun industry is one of the smallest industries out there. According to 2007 stats for Fortune 500 companies, the highest profit margin industry is 28.8% of revenue, oil company's margin is 13.7%. While I am not able to find the profit margin for the gun industry, but I highly doubt it's more than oil. Even IF at 10% profit, divided over 200 gun companies, I hardly call it a lucrative industry. There are more people killed by cars daily than guns. Most of these "killings" are done by typically law abiding citizen. Negligence and stupidity are two primary culprits. We know to blame the drivers and why aren't we blaming the car industry for making the cars and oil company putting gas in the cars to make them move? As for your problem with calling this a "movement", it's a lot closer to the truth than you think. Four of the subjects in the PW article got into gun and carry in the past 3 to 5 years. I know MANY young professionals who carry and have just gotten into owning and/or carrying in recent years, if not recent months. If you don't believe me, stand outside of Philadelphia Archery and Gun Club or The Firing Line and take a survey. This "movement" is in parts correspond to the Libertarian and Independent views that a lot of younger people find them more politically aligned to. Perhaps Mr.Campisi could explore that aspect further, and just about every politicized aspect of the article even further, but as you well know, there are only so many pages to print on. Maybe you can pick up where he left off about politics? The better topic to write about though would be, why aren't we enforcing existing gun laws in the book and hand out tougher sentences instead of making new ones? How about an article on City Paper on the gun culture of young urbanites: sporting, target practice, skeet and clay, defensive pistol shooting (IDPA), long range rifle match, 3-gun match, rifle building and customizing, social meet & greets...ignoring politics altogether if you really "understand that good people get guns and use them responsibly".
As a former resident of Kensington, I think your article is a necessary criticism of Campisi's article, both in terms of content and "reporting" style. Thanks :)
Thank you Mr. Thompson for this powerfully written piece. In particular, thank you for mentioning the advocacy against straw purchasing. A movement involving many people in this city, religious and non- religious. A movement that brought attention to straw purchases at Colosimo's gun shop in 2009. You are right Mr. Thompson, about the responsibility of a journalist, it is not to be taken lightly. The importance of journalism in the closing of Colosimo's gun shop was paramount. As reported by a few periodicals in this city, including a Sep. 26th Inquirer article, federal authorities were already aware of the straw purchases at this particular shop but it was the public pressure that lead to the authorities actually stopping purchases at that shop. Journalism can change the tides (Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, etc.) and in this current age of widespread instant information, that sometimes gets lost. Thank you for reminding us of the importance of all journalism, in particular free public written works, and conversational works, such as this one between you and Mr Campisi, on important issues.
"this article isn't just bad, it's offensive." Which of the two articles were you talking about? Obviously a history lesson is needed here. Kennesaw GA? After reading this, I am glad I live in the south. Honestly man, how did you ever make it past paper boy? Oh nothing personal.
After a banner year for gun sales (God bless Obama!), the FBI just announced a 7.2% drop in murder and a 5.5% drop in violent crime.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelimsem2009/table_1.html
Once again, what relevance is straw purchasing to young professionals carrying guns daily for personal protection in this story? Just because Campisi found a police officer at the protest, it gives no relevance whatsoever to the story. If you are so interested in it, I am sure City Paper will be more than happy to indulge in the next article as it seems they are eager to do something about straw purchasing. The foundation of the 10 points is a database, which violates federal laws. Video taping violates privacy. Forcing signing a non-binding feel-good 10 points that includes 8 that are either required by the ATF or already conducted by the shop is patronizing. Going 20 in 25 MPG zone analogy is faulty at best. Do you go around making drivers sign a 10-point "common sense" driving paper? The closer analogy would be asking car dealership to sign a similar 10-point to curb drunk drivers. The NRA encourages people to OC at counter protest? Can you cite the NRA memo on this because I didn't see one. Even if they DID, what's wrong with OC? People who OC tend to have more activism roles and aware of what's going on when it comes to infringement of rights. It's kind of hard to express your gun right at a protest carrying concealed. How, again, is mentioning this in one way or another relevant? You just wanted to bring the "NRA" up as a buzz word for "gun lobbyist" to invoke puppet master. That is a typical anti-gun attitude. Diane Feinstein, one of the biggest anti-gun politicians, if not the biggest, has a carry permit. Even having a permit and carry doesn't make you not an anti-gun person. Saying you're not anti-gun, doesn't make you so. Having shot before, doesn't mean anything. It's what you do, force people to do, opine, write, and say that make you anti-gun. My reply to Mr. Thompson below pointed out plenty of examples why he is anti-gun. Here's another common anti-gun term: illegal guns. There are no "illegal" guns, only illegal sale of guns and illegal USE of guns. When you focus on the object, you lose. When you focus on the crime, you win. Even if guns are completely banned, it will be like drugs. There isn't a "1 gram a month" and yet virtually anyone can get drugs. What makes you think that it will be different with guns and these 10 points? I feel like a broken record here: ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS TO THE FULLEST EXTEND!!! Read the NFA and UFA and see how many gun laws we have already. Ask yourself instead WHY violent offenders keep coming back on the streets. Protest the judges for giving out light sentences, protest the parole board for letting violent criminals out early and repeatedly. File for information, find out who the straw purchasers are and protest in front of their houses. FOCUS ON CRIMES, not on guns!
Hello Isaiah, I am Al from the PW Article. Plenty comments have pointed out your anti-gun and anti-gun rights stand, but I would like to address the rather harsh "silly glorification of the author's subjects" charge, particularly regarding my quotes in the article. I graduated Drexel with a 4.0 in Bioscience & Biotechnology. I'm by nature academic and scientific, to say the least. I approach virtually every subject, including my hobbies in photography, astronomy, RC helicopter, and shooting academically. I enjoy learning using the spectrum of tools for each hobbies: the variation in lenses for my camera, coaxial and collective pitch helicopters, refractor, reflector and Schmidt-Cassegrainian telescopes and a wide range of eyepieces, and the many types of handguns and rifles. I enjoy learning how to operate a variety of guns, knowing how they work differently. I also build and customize the AR15 rifles, the most popular of the so-called "assault rifle" platform that, as far as I know, rarely or ever have been used in any shooting or crime. When I teach new shooters, it's a 5-gun session, where I go over the various make/models, trigger actions, safety differences, calibers, operational and usage techniques. This allows for a new shooter to find the gun(s) that fits him or her the best. Being a responsible gun owner means that you need to study gun laws. There are hundreds of prohibitions and exceptions when it comes to purchasing, owning, transporting, licensing, and carrying firearms. I spend a lot of my time discussing various laws online, in person, and to gun owners and new shooters all over the country. I analyze raw statistics and read studies on the topic. I am nearly always up-to-date on emerging gun policies and debates. I'm often engaged in discussions regarding gun rights with people who are dead set on taking them away. So you see, while it may not be true for all gun owners out there, it's academic for me in many ways and for a lot of gun owners I know. I'm a Buddhist, that is who I am. Being a Buddhist has nothing to do with owning or carrying a gun for self-defense. In the interview, I followed "it's hard to practice Buddhism when you are dead" with "it's hard to practice ANY religion when you are dead". That quote and the fact that I am a Buddhist meant convey that I am not a paranoid freak and even someone with spiritual tendency recognizes the need for self-defense. My parents are both Buddhists and my dad is a Zen scholar for nearly 50 years. They too are purchasing a gun for home defense next week. By the way, if you can find sutra references or teachings with regard to the practice of Buddhism and self-defense, you may want to contact the Shaolin Temple, whose development of its "kung fu" was for the very purpose of self-defense since ancient time. Killing can be a consequence of self-defense, but it's not the intention. If you believe in the idea of karma, you need to realize that it has to be dispensed in one manner or another, especially in a life threatening situation, of yourself or innocent bystanders. Just as I won't hold the police for justify shootings, I won't hold myself morally responsible for the same either. Jon Campisi sat down with me and my wife for 2 hours, where I conveyed pretty much the same information I wrote here. He didn't glorify us in the article. If he treated other interview subjects as he treated me and my wife, in all likelihood he didn't glorify them either. I'd be more than happy to discuss with you in details on either one of these aspects, as well as anything regarding gun laws and gun rights, especially why nearly everything you said in this blog is anti-gun and anti-gun rights in one way or another. If you are interested in finding out the "academic" nature of gun ownership, I'll be happy to arrange for a session at the range. You can contact Jon Campisi for my number/email. Al
[...] — Finally, in cross-media catfight news, and inspired by the Philadelphia City Paper’s calling-out of the Philadelphia Weekly’s cover story on local gun culture (I hope that’s an [...]
So I don't have a problem with those responsible people owning guns but I do have a problem with those who should not have guns being allowed to purchase and use them. So far, "no gun rights supporter" (I like how only those who pay their NRA dues and actually excersize their right to purchase guns can be considereed a gun right supporter) has yet come up with a solution this. I could buy a gun. I have no criminal record. The question is am I a responsible person enough to carry one. My quick temper could very well find use for the weapon that becomes very comfortable in my grip. Again, I have no problem with gun ownership. I just wish there were a way for making sure responsible people owned those guns. I don't think a criminal background check and a valid ID are enough for that.
Hello Brandon, Not true at all about NRA members being the only supporters of gun rights. I'm a member, my wife isn't. A LOT of gun owners and supporters are not NRA members and some even hate the NRA. Being a gun right supporter is simple: read the existing laws, know what they are, stop asking for more laws that will do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms while infringing the fundamental rights of the people to arm themselves for self-defense. As a matter of fact, you don't need to be a gun right supporter. You only need to be a rational individual who believe that fundamental rights are important and that any infringement on those rights are questioned without political manipulation or personal emotion based on media-produced "evident". I'm asserting this over ALL fundamental and constitutional rights, not just the right to bear arms. You can't place value judgment on "responsibleness" as a criteria for ownership. It's subjective. You clearly (falsely) hold the gun to be the culprit. Your quick temper could very well find use for a knife (like numerous slaughtering using knives of school students in China recently), or baseball bats, or any other "weaponizable" objects, including hands and fists, really. If you keep blaming the gun, you will eventually want to ban it. It's getting to that already in New Jersey, California, and several other states. It will be like banning drugs: only the criminals will be able to get it. Restricting gun rights and gun ownership, by any further means, and as it already severely restricted, will only benefit the criminals. You sound like you actually care about the problem, but please do read up on all the facts (especially existing laws) and laws in severely restricted states and their detrimental consequences to gun rights, before you actually try to think about a solution. Al
Do you really think everyone has the right to bear arms? If not, how do you define who doesn't have that right.
Government, limited by the constitution, defines who loses rights. Don't tell me you didn't know that!
The post is really informative and straight forward.
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Topics:
- ActiVman
- adventures
- Arts
- Ask A Man-About-Town
- Award Tour
- Awards
- Bad Idea Factory
- Beer
- Below the Curve
- Bikes
- Booze
- Brian Hickey
- BRT
- Budget
- Budget Fuss
- Business
- Casinos
- City Council
- City Hall
- CouncilMANIC
- CP Abroad
- CP in the Community
- Criminal Justice System
- Day Tripper
- Death and Taxes
- Delaware River
- Design
- DROP
- Drugs
- Dubious Distinction
- Elections
- End of Days
- Environment
- Fashion
- Film Fest
- Financial Meltdown
- FrackTrack
- Free Library
- Gambling
- Gay Stuff
- Get Lit
- Greenstorming
- guns
- Hall Monitor
- Health
- Health Care
- Hello, Kitty
- Holidays
- Ice Cubes
- Iggles
- Immigration
- In Memoriam
- Labor
- Lawsuits
- Letters
- LGBTQ
- Maps
- Marcellus Shale
- Media
- MMA
- Mummers
- Music
- MUST READ
- Mysterious Mysteries
- Nation
- News
- Non Sequitur
- Opinion
- PA politics 2010
- Parking Wars
- Parks and Recreation
- People Send Us This Stuff
- Philadelphia Police
- Philadelphia Union
- Philaphemera
- Philly From Scratch
- philly madness
- Photos
- Poverty
- PPA
- President Obama
- Print Edition
- Prisons
- Protest
- Readers Write
- Real Estate
- Rock Bottom
- Schools
- Science
- Screwing Philly
- SEPTA
- snow
- So Lush
- Soccer
- Sporting Life
- Sports Complex
- State Politicians
- State Politics
- Street Art
- Strike
- Stuff We Like
- Taxes
- Taxi Drivers
- Tech Fetish
- television
- The Budget Crisis
- The City Paper
- The CLOG
- The Human Condition
- The Mayor
- The Phightin Phils
- The World
- Things that make you go hm
- Tinfoil Hats Off
- Under the Table
- Under the Tables
- Urban Development
- Urban Planning
- urban wildlife
- Video Poker
- We Call Shenanigans
- Weather
- Web Junk
- Weekend Omnibus
- White House
- What We've Found
- Women's Issues
- Flyered Up!
- How 'Bout That Weather?
- it's always sunny in philadelphia
- Stu!
- Shopping
- get out
- 10-track mind
- ArtsFlash
- Bloggity
- Bruce Being Bruce
- Colleges
- Comedy
- Gigantic Surprises
- Hello Canary
- Hello Puppy
- errata
- get lost
- Inside The Fishbowl
- Library Closings
- Local Support
- Movies
- Murder
- Night Moves
- Recycling
- radio
- Scientology
- Sex
- Sixers
- Skeeze Police
- State Politicians Screwing Philly
- That's a cool stencil!
- Theater
- Things We See
- This Week
- This Week in Oates
- University City
- WIN
- What we don't heart
- trailer!
- what we heart
- Feeling Guilty
- Askadelphia.
- Broke in Philly
- Contest
- Dance
- Dear Paper Doll
- Do A Good Thing
- Education
- Film Fest Schism
- G20-20 Vision
- Goodbye
- Gossip
- Great American Heroes
- PATCO
- Pearl Jam Week
- Puppy
- Stars of the Photostream
- sustainability
- Lower Merion Webcam-Gate
- The Cycle
- Equality Forum
- Bureaucrat of the Week
- Animals
- ElectionEar
- Photostream
