Controlling Guns in Philadelphia

To Mike in PA

Dave, get off your elitist high horse. Gun owners don't just live in the sticks. We're everywhere; doctors, lawyers, engineers....we span all classes and social groups.

I live right outside of DC - a bigger urban area than Philly by far.

the right to defend yourself

I was born in the bronx nyc so i learned at an early age how to defend myself by any and all means necessary.I was beaten up and robbed many times once by four puerto ricans who wanted my leather coat,they didn't get it.Another time by two blacks they pulled a knife on me(when i was going to school)good thing i had my own knife and they ran.I am now in my late forties and i have a concealed weapons license to carry a fire arm.you don't ever want to use it but it makes you feel safer that you can and have the right to protect yourself.That right should never be taken away from you, NEVER.Criminals don't follow the gun laws we have how why would they follow any new gun laws.Protect our second amendment,for our safety.

Lets give NOT

What should be very clear is the term "limiting". Anyone following this subject knows that if we allow a "reasonable" number of 1 gun a month will see it could also be "reasonable" to allow 1 gun a year, 5, 10, and you see how this ends up. It is notable that this letter originates in N.J. where hollow point bullets are outlawed for being more dangerouser than ball. Now that is reasonable isn't it?

responsible

Dave

A irresponsible person shouldn't have a gun. Then the responsible preson should have as many as he wants whenever he wants.

I dont live in the NE, and probal'ly dont know all the problems you deal with. Simple solution- anyone who uses a firearm in a crime, put them in jail a long time. 10-15 or more years or more. Their criminals who care nothing about anyones life but their own.

No giving!

"When the people fear the Government there is tyrrany, when the Government fear the people there is liberty"

Thomas Jefferson

It would be a terrible shame The people of this country voted their own rights away.

Dave from NJ

Why a person want more than one handgun a month is irelavent, it is not the goverments place to say what we can and can not do. I mean were does it stop what big brother can tell you what to do? Does it really stop there, the answer is "no it doen't!" there allready telling us where we can and can not smoke, what we are allowed to eat and not allowed, what kind of cars we can drive, what kind of light bulbs we can get, and the list goes on and on and on. And I'm sure your saying "So what!" Its for our own good, right? For whos good? For a ever big nanny goverment to look after us like were a bunch of dumb, mindless childern who need looked after? C'mon! Were are given rights and Liberty under the Constitution thats says we can do without big goverment in our way. To answer your question I would buy more than one gun a month because I am a collector and because I can (for now) also if I have to say it again read the Constitution and also I know your from NJ and don't go by our constitution, but ours simply states:Right to Bear Arms

Section 21.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

So infact to say I can't buy 2 guns in a month goes against the Constitution and is unlawful for that matter!

So I hope that cleared that up for you. If not well, you'll never get it!

To Dave of NJ

Here are a few reasons:: 1 There are no limits on how many knives you can buy a year and people still get stabbed to death . 2 There are no limits to how much alcohol you can buy a year and more people die in alcohol related crashes than shootings.3 There are no limits on how many cars you can buy in a year and people still get killed in car crashes. 4 There are no limits on how many baseball bats you can buy in a year and people still get beaten to death with them.. Liberals like yourself always want to take everything away from the law abiding citizens and always want to give the criminals the benefit of people not being able to defend themselves or equalize the "playing field".Those who are irresponsible people who are eligible and are buying for those who are not are also criminals who have just not been caught yet.I don't think you are intelligent enough to understand this.

Yikes!

Wow, these comments are so off base and truly frightening. Nothing like some guy from a town of 2000 people (probably less) telling the 5th largest city how to run itself. I really hope most of the comments posted are from the same guy who has too much time on his hands. And nothing like dragging this into a bipartisan argument and how the liberals are always the issue. But i digress, here are some things to keep in mind:

1. All Philadelphia is asking is TO CHANGE THE GUN LAWS IN PHILADELPHIA. As far as the city is concerned, the rest of PA can buy all the guns they want and play cowboys and indians all day. the request is to limit the guns in Philly. I still can't figure out why people in the rest of PA choose to dump on Philly when most of PA's economy is built off of Philadelphia. Without Phildelphia, the rest of rural PA would lose half the value on their properties and would be in some trouble.

2. And is the request that outlandish? Can you not get by buying only one handgun a month? and is it that bad of an idea when your house gets robbed and someone steals your guns that you tell the cops in the report that you had 2 handguns stolen? I hardly think this tramples on your rights. No one in Philadelphia suggests people can't have guns, not even close.

there are a dozen more reasons to at least discuss this, but I will wait to hear people's views on these 2 points. no one in Philadelphia believes this will solve crime, but it won't make it worse.

Response to Dave of NJ

This has been analyzed in various studies, and such laws have never been linked to a reduction in violent crime. If the government cannot demonstrate a clear public interest in infringing on freedom, then it should not do so. You would likely howl if the government proposed limiting the number times you could contact your elected representatives, or limiting the number of opinion letters you could have published in your newspaper, or limiting any other exercise of civil liberties. One-gun-a-month restrictions sound good to some folks, and they have been implemented in several states and in other countries, but such laws have never been shown to benefit public safety - which is the ostensible purpose of such laws.

The fact is that gun control only affects those of us who are not inclined to commit crimes in the first place. Gang members, cocaine traffickers, and meth lab operators will always be able to get guns. Criminals, by their very definition, do not obey the law.

I respectfully suggest that educate yourself - do some searches for: National Academy of Sciences study of 2004, Professor Gary Kleck, John Lott, Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser, and the Cato Institute. You will find proper, empirical studies proving that gun control is ineffective at reducing violent crime.

Lets give

Can some gun rights advocate tell me what is wrong with limiting a law abiding, responsible adult to buying 12 guns a year? How many guns does one need to own to defend him or herself? Does it not make sense that maybe, in some cases, this limit will prevent a irresponsible person who is eligible to buy a gun from arming a lot of other irresponsible people who should not have guns in the first place?