Tuesday bits
- Looks like PA Governor Ed Rendell's political future may be caught in the tangle of debate over whether to build the Pittsburgh Penguins a new hockey stadium. Die-hard sports fans want the Gov. to back a casino proposal that would also involve funding for the stadium, but he understandably feels he should stay out of the Gaming Board's decision processes. However, he might bear the brunt of anger that there was no rabbit to be pulled out of a hat on this one...
- Santorum takes some jabs at rival Casey in the press, making a show of inviting his primary opponent to debate (no date yet) and mocking Casey for not having done likewise (although he has also expressed willingness with no date yet). Eight months until the general? I'm already sick of it... A couple of speculations about what this may mean for the little guys.
- A Daily News letter-writer thinks local politicians overestimate the possible impact of local gun laws. Are the criminals likely to read the fine print?
- Uh, some people are getting a bit tired of Pennacchio's drumbeat of disapproval of Bob Casey, and wondering if he's lost sight of the bigger target in the other party... For my part, the fervor of his supporters sometimes puts me off the man himself. But I applaud their dedication to principle.
- Above Average Jane wonders whether Wal-Mart is being unfairly singled out for condemnation on its benefits, and notes some of the company's better points... Sorry, would never shop there, on principle and because in practice they gouge you on some items to make up for the discounts on others.
- Apparently the 2nd installment of "why you should care about PA-08" is out, but it's on Rowhouse Logic instead of Young Philly Politics. I'm a little confused... Anyway, a profile of the Republican incumbent.
posted by ACM at 1:49 PM
3 Comments:
Not quite sure why you linked to that absurdist editorial - obviously written by a "guns don't kill people, people kill people" logistician.
The bills in question are to limit legal gun purchases to one per month (currently folks can "legally" buy thousands of guns a year - what could possibly be a legitimate reason to buy more than one gun per month?), legislate that gun owners have to report it when their guns are stolen (and be accountable if they don't report the theft and it is later used in a crime), and to give Philadelphians the right to create their own gun legislation (which they used to have, but which was taken away by the voting block of NRA Republicans, and "representatives such as O'Brien and Perzel despite the fact that their own constituents voter in favor of Philadelphians having such a right - and by the way, since Philadelphia's laws regulating gun regulation were rescinded - the number of "legal" purchases of guns in the city have grown exponentially).
those are the bills under consideration (to varying degrees) by the legislature. that is not what the writer was addressing, nor was the introductory froth what I found of interest.
city officials have been arguing (over several years) that Philadelphia should be able to put local gun regulations in place -- they passed such laws, only to have them overthrown by the state courts, and have been considering other ways to get local say-so in such matters. I understand the motives behind feeling that local officials should have more leeway in dealing with a recurrent local problem such as violent crime. but I think it's reasonable to ask whether the sorts of things that they can control -- such as saying that public property carries an extra penalty for gun use -- are as likely to have a useful effect as would the state changes that you mention -- limiting sales and the like. in the absence of state will, the city feels the need to "do something," but no all such efforts have to be equally meritorious. I tend to think that those that try to focus on narrow deterrence may be less effective than those that try to keep guns off the street more generally, so I shared a slice of the author's snark about whether a criminal would check to be sure which street he was on before discharging a weapon.
anyway, I think we tend to hear only one side of these arguments, even if it is the one most compelling to me. so the occasional input of a (not entirely insane) voice from the other side can be worthwhile just as a reality check.
Good response. But in my own defense, I looked at the opening statement:
"THE NOTION that Philadelphia can control or reduce its burgeoning murder rate by enacting gun-control legislation is nothing short of ludicrous."
to indicate that subject of the author's wisdom was not restricted to the one specific ordinance - but included the larger concepts of whether "guns kill people" and whether or not Philadelphians should be able to enact any local legislation regarding gun control.
And while I respect the concept of hearing voices from the "other side," I thought it curious that you'd link to what I feel is an ill-conceived rant by an NRA nutcase.
But, that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.
Post a Comment
<< Home