What, no white men?

jimpeel

New member
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070913/D8RKQJ2O0.html

Philly Seeks 10,000 Men to Guard Streets

Sep 13, 5:18 PM (ET)

By MARYCLAIRE DALE

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The city's embattled police chief, acknowledging that police alone cannot quell a run of deadly violence, has called on 10,000 black men to patrol the streets to reduce crime.

Sylvester Johnson, who is black, says black men have a duty to protect more vulnerable residents. He wants each volunteer to pledge to work three hours a day for at least 90 days.

"It's time for African-American men to stand up," Johnson told the Philadelphia Daily News, which first reported the story Wednesday. "We have an obligation to protect our women, our children and our elderly. We're going to put men on the street. We're going to train them in conflict resolution."

The program's backers include Dennis Muhammad, a former Nation of Islam official who has been hired by police departments in Detroit, Syracuse, N.Y., and other cities to conduct community-sensitivity training.

Philadelphia, the nation's sixth-largest city, has nearly 1.5 million residents, 44 percent of them black. It has notched 294 homicides this year. More than 80 percent of the slayings involve handguns, and most involve young black males.

Johnson plans to introduce the "Call to Action: 10,000 Men, It's a New Day" program on Oct. 21, three months before his planned retirement.

"He won't get anywhere near that number. If he gets 1,000 people, it will be great," said Heather DeRussy, who leads a local Guardian Angels chapter that has recruited just seven members in the past two years. Given its size, the group focuses on a single north Philadelphia park plagued by prostitution and drug use.

DeRussy lauded Johnson for his effort but said she fears the volunteers will find it dangerous to patrol their home turf.

"In their own neighborhoods, with the 'Don't snitch' mentality, they're kind of putting themselves in harm's way, because there are going to be people who disagree with what they're doing," DeRussy said.

The men who join Johnson's program will not carry weapons or make arrests but will instead emphasize conflict resolution, similar to the Guardian Angels' ground rules.

Police in other cities have hired Muhammad in recent years to provide sensitivity training to officers and community members, but it was not immediately clear whether any have deployed a volunteer patrol force.

Johnson, who had led the police department for seven years, appears increasingly frustrated by the daily gun violence. He and other city leaders have blamed the Legislature for not passing gun-control measures.

Mayor John F. Street, whose term is up at the beginning of 2008, has voiced support for the program, but it was not clear whether he would become involved. His office did not return a call for comment Thursday, nor did Johnson's office.

Street and Johnson have both endured withering criticism from frustrated residents and community leaders who say they should do more to halt the violence.

One gun-violence researcher said the idea of putting citizens on patrol had the potential to show children that adults care.

"A steady exposure to violence just creates this toxic environment for children and youth. As adults, we don't want them to think they have to handle it on their own," said Rose Cheney, executive director of the Firearm and Injury Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

"If, by putting people out there - not just as a town watch, but as resources who connect them to what they need from adults - that can be very promising," she said.
 
Hmm

It's interesting that you posted this because I just got done posting on a non gun forum about how people need to have personal responsibility and accountability and stop blaming others or the govt. for their problems.

This could have been a step in the right direction for these communities until he made the comments about gun control.

Regardless, this isn't going to work (I live in Philadelphia) because they are skirting the real issues. There might not be as much gun violence if all guns were banned in Philly, but there will definitely be violence.

It may sound bad if he specifically called blacks only but realistically I don't find fault in this because they would be patrolling their own neighborhoods where there few to no white people.

Thanks for posting this, I don't have a TV so this is the first I've heard about it. Yeah, I don't use the internet to read Philly news (only intnl.) because it's more of the same.
 
There might not be as much gun violence if all guns were banned in Philly, but there will definitely be violence.


They tried that in NYC and DC. Didn't work. They are trying that in England. Isn't working there either. For some reason, bad guys just don't obey those gun bans and the result is nothing more than disarming their prey.
 
They tried that in NYC and DC. Didn't work. They are trying that in England. Isn't working there either. For some reason, bad guys just don't obey those gun bans and the result is nothing more than disarming their prey.

Actually, unless I'm mistaken the rates of firearms-related violence in England (and, for that matter, Australia) are pretty low. It doesn't work out so well in New York or DC (or other US cities) because they're surrounded by areas with more lax gun laws; which even if it doesn't facilitate legal purchase certainly facilitates the black market for handguns.

Of course, in both the UK and AUS gun bans had little effect on overall violent crime; some handgun violence persisted, and of course other weapons (knives, blunt weapons, etc.) were used as well.
 
Actually, unless I'm mistaken the rates of firearms-related violence in England (and, for that matter, Australia) are pretty low.

They might be low compared to other countries, but they are increasing, despite the ban (at least in the UK this is evident).
 
JuanCarlos said:
Actually, unless I'm mistaken the rates of firearms-related violence in England (and, for that matter, Australia) are pretty low.

actually, you are mistaken. gun crime has quadrupled since the handgun ban was enacted in the UK.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

their violent crime rate is now higher than the US as well.

2006 statistics:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html
 
It doesn't work out so well in New York or DC (or other US cities) because they're surrounded by areas with more lax gun laws; which even if it doesn't facilitate legal purchase certainly facilitates the black market for handguns.

Makes you wonder why those surrounding areas with lax gun laws do not have the same high gun crime rate, eh?
 
You edited out this part:
1998-2000 statistics (the first 3 years after the gun ban):
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Which shows the UK having a homicide rate that was only a third of that in the US. Also with a lower rate of rape and a comparable rate of assault. Also, regarding the map link that you haven't edited out, crime rate is not the same as violent crime rate.

That last link is interesting, though. Thanks.

Makes you wonder why those surrounding areas with lax gun laws do not have the same high gun crime rate, eh?

Because rural Virginia is not the same as downtown Washington? Acting as though gun laws are the only variable affecting crime rates in different areas (or even the same area over different time periods) is silly whether it's used as a pro-gun argument or anti-gun. Heck, for all we know violent crime (or more specifically firearms-related crime) in the UK would have increased even more without a ban. Correlation != causation, after all.

I stand by my assertion that gun laws, if they're both draconian enough and instituted nationwide, can (not will) actually reduce firearms-related crime. Not crime, not violent crime...just firearms-related crime. Of course, without a significant impact on violent crime in general I don't think this is exactly worthwhile.

But whatever. I think we both agree that stricter regulation in Philadelphia won't work, and that stricter regulation nationwide wouldn't "work" either...if by "work" we mean reduce actual violent crime. We may not agree on gun-specific crime, but that hardly matters; dead's dead, whether it's a knife or gun.
 
wow I am so underwhelmed

What ever happened to the Civil defence programe ??? My dad was a CD volonteer in the early 50s they carried there own side armes had limited police powers. way before my time but it sounds like a crime watch progrme of today, meaning comunity involvment that is. I ve heared of the "no snitchin" attitude I find that to be juvinile, for grownpeople to adhear to such nonsense. I have heared over and over how local police are undermaned and can't meet the volume of crime. What that means in indianapolis is higher taxes for les service I suppose thats prety standard.
sorry no answers here and I don't know the local situation in philly.
 
Juan:

Crime is always and everywhere a consequence of the presence of criminals. New York, DC, Philadelphia all have high crime due to high concentrations of criminals. Guns don't reduce the number of criminals (much). They do reduce the success rate of violent criminals in the vicinity of the armed citizen, though.


Many countries have lower crime rates than the US average. These countries have radically different demographics from the US. That's why their crime rates are lower. There's a big difference between Japan and Brazil. And it's not guns.


It's the criminals. Simple.
 
JuanCarlos,

Not to pile on here, but your purely utilitarian argument vis gun control, of course, ignores a more fundamental fact - it impinges upon law abiding citizens' right to protect themselves from criminal predation (not to mention that King-outta-your-face thing).

Just supposing someone could demonstrate that a gun ban would reduce homicide by firearm to zero, I would still oppose it for that simple reason. We are citizens, not subjects.

Don't mean to be argumentative, as I don't believe you were actually banging the drum for either gun grabs or a purely utilitarian view of gun control.

Thanks, all.
 
Don't mean to be argumentative, as I don't believe you were actually banging the drum for either gun grabs or a purely utilitarian view of gun control.

Of course not. It's just that given the context of this argument the utilitarian aspect was the most relevant.

Crime is always and everywhere a consequence of the presence of criminals. New York, DC, Philadelphia all have high crime due to high concentrations of criminals. Guns don't reduce the number of criminals (much). They do reduce the success rate of violent criminals in the vicinity of the armed citizen, though.


Many countries have lower crime rates than the US average. These countries have radically different demographics from the US. That's why their crime rates are lower. There's a big difference between Japan and Brazil. And it's not guns.

It's the criminals. Simple.

Makes perfect sense to me. Now tell this to Hkmp5sd; he was the one asking why there was less crime outside NYC than in it. You'll also never hear me spout the fallacy (which I've heard from pro-gun folks) that Montpelier has a lower crime rate than Chicago or New York City. Yeah, I've heard the comparison between Sydney and New York as well...it's equally silly.

Also, I wasn't pointing out the (generally) lower violent crime rates in wealthy western nations that have gun bans to imply that the gun bans were the cause. I was merely looking to refute the assertion (made here) that these countries actually have significantly higher violent crime rates than the US. There's not even a particularly strong correlation between national rates of violent crime among western nations and gun bans, so I'd certainly not imply (as some have) that there's a causative link. Because, as you said, there are a ton of other variables.

Anyway, back on track. all this relates to this, from back in post number #2:

Regardless, this isn't going to work (I live in Philadelphia) because they are skirting the real issues. There might not be as much gun violence if all guns were banned in Philly, but there will definitely be violence.


Exactly. Philadelphia has problems that go way beyond availability of handguns. Even if we could actually "get rid of" guns in Philly...we can't, not so long as they can be easily obtained in Reading or nearby states...but assuming we could, all you'd likely see is an increase in non-firearm crime to compensate. Knife crime would become popular, and unlike handguns you need those for cooking or other necessary tasks. Hard to just ban those. If you're lucky you'll have converted some murders into aggravated assaults (given less effective weapons in the hands of the average mugger or robber); then again, with an entirely disarmed populace and the same number of criminals don't be surprised if you see more of those, as well as more burglaries while the occupant is home (as Kleck pointed out). I have a hard time selling that as an actual improvement.

I think we're all just in the choir preaching to each other on this one, while at the same time arguing about what tune to sing. It's obvious that attacking the tools a criminal uses without looking at the underlying motivation of the crime isn't real effective. Putting more people on the street to prevent crime (either officers or volunteers) is at least better, but if you still fail to address the underlying social issues you'll likely meet with limited success.
 
Ya' know, this is one time where the race-card doesn't offend me. I think the black community should stand up and make a clear statement.

Since I was a little boy I've heard accusations that many men left their families to secure a bigger welfare check.

Whether that was ever true or not, many children are raised by their grandmothers. Certainly these children do not enjoy the same financial privileges of almost everyone else in my town.

Their own culture seems to glorify the gangsta class, replete with nickel plated guns, pimping and gambling. If nothing else, America needs to see black men who are concerned about values and their children.

With every 'up' there's truly a 'down.'

My fear is that no one will show up, underlining the stereotype that bigots always projected.
 
But, as I understand it, their homicide rate is only lower than the blue counties.

The site linked is for the entire nation on both. Their posted homicide rate (and rape rate) were lower, and assault rate was no higher (actually slightly lower).

As far as "red counties" or "blue counties," the UK has urban areas too. In fact, with a population density that's like six times ours (and higher than all but a couple states, like MA and NJ...yes, higher than NY or CA) I think it's safe to say that the UK is probably fairly well urbanized. So comparing their crime rate to Wyoming's wouldn't make much sense anyway. Their crime rate with that level of urbanization should be higher than ours, for nations as a whole...we have a huge advantage, what with all the empty square states.
 
Being a State Parole Agent in West Philadelphia, and a former CO at Graterford (Maxium Security, less than an hour from Philly where a great Majority of the Inmates are from Philly)

I see it as a problem of the culture, it is acceptable, even normal to have a convicted felon in the family. No shame, no disgrace. Until to Community Stands up and says this is not the way to live, the Gansta lifestyle will continue to be a permanent situation.

Until the people stand up and say enough of this, the crime, violence, and depravity will continue.

Personnally I think we need to as a nation get some backbone, and the rewards for crime be so great and unpleasent the younger generation will get the idea that "this is not the way to go"

I have a plan, that while tough is not cruel, but productive, educational, and really unpleseant.
 
Juan Carlos wrote:Because rural Virginia is not the same as downtown Washington? Acting as though gun laws are the only variable affecting crime rates in different areas (or even the same area over different time periods) is silly whether it's used as a pro-gun argument or anti-gun. Heck, for all we know violent crime (or more specifically firearms-related crime) in the UK would have increased even more without a ban. Correlation != causation, after all.

I think if you look at the statistics, even metro Virginia immediately surrounding D.C. has a significantly lower crime rate. No one is saying that gun laws are the only factor, but the only scientific causation studies have borne out a correlation between the ability and willingness to engage in self defense and the crime rate. I would refer you to John Lott's research.

One of the huge factors in crime that is never talked about is the level of assimilation between various societal groups. The higher the assimilation into the parent culture, the less crime there is. There have been some tentative studies in other countries that I am aware of, but in the USA, such studies are taboo as we bow to the god of diversity.
 
You cannot compare the cities to the small town and rural areas for examining the effects of gun control..
There is less crime in the rural areas - not because the gangsta can't drive out there, but because they know that every house has a gun. - usually loaded and usually within easy reach..
My neighbor is an example, where the kitchen opens into the mud room and back door... Next to the kitchen side of the doorway into the mud room is a towel hanger with a brightly colored bath towel hanging on it... Doesn't rate a second glance unless your sharp eyes notice the 12 ga. gun butt barely peeping out below this large towel...

Another issue is that the gangsta looks like a gangsta, with the tattoos, the team jackets, droopy britches, gold chains, etc... They stand out in a village/rural area like a turd in the collection plate at church... No way can they just hang around for hours waiting for someone wandering by to be a victim...
 
Back
Top