Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5frjf wrote

Reply to comment by NonIdentifiableUser in Amen Brown has survived another ballot challenge. But the judge also cited ‘serious concerns’ about his financial disclosures. by ADFC

Yes, what is the purpose of temporary deterrence? I mean saving only a few poor peoples lives really worth the effort anyway?

This is the definition of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

I agree, we need to fix policing. But why the heck does that forsake doing anything else until we fix police? I mean do you expect someone to wave a wand to fix police, or more realistically , understand huge change like that will take years. Saying 500+ need to die a year so you can moral grandstand on whats the BEST way to saves lives and lower crime smacks of entitlement rather than someone actually trying to help the citizens of the nation's poorest big city.

Again, anyone who is actually close to crime, lost loved ones, or lives in fear, would love to hear steps being taken, even if it only saves 25 ppl. But those that live in nice neighborhoods are fine watching the city burn so they can feel morally righteous about the policies they espouse.

I care about the citizens, not some ideological bullshit to feel warm inside. If dudes in Army fatigues can save people from dying, it's worth a try as we work through fixing other institutions in the city. It's not one or the other, it can EASILY be both.

2

NonIdentifiableUser t1_je5hjg6 wrote

I dunno man, I can appreciate where you’re coming from but I just don’t think it’s as easy as you’re making it sound to plant the national guard here as a crime deterrent. Who pays for it? The city, the state, the feds? If we’re gonna do it in Philly, why not other cities with worse homicide rates?

I’m not looking for a perfect solution, I just think the threshold for mobilizing the national guard is (rightfully) pretty high, and if violence that has been going on for half a century was considered below that threshold, we’d have seen it already. We already know things that will work (like, hey, maybe some gun laws so a teenager doesn’t have easy enough access that they can blast someone they get in a fight with), but we’ve decided in this country that we’re different and what has worked literally everywhere else just won’t work here (but no one can really explain why it won’t work).

6

QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5jz5w wrote

Again, you literally are saying you think there are better ways so why even try using the national guard. This is the perfect being the enemy of the good. I dont claim it definitely will work, but what can it hurt? Murders are at all time highs over the last three years.

As far as I am aware, the national guard is fully funded by the DOD.

Also, why are you so content on doing nothing in the short term to alleviate the burden on citizens? Talking about enacting legislation, and reforming infrastructure, and the police are things that take a lot of time. In the meantime, do we just tell citizens get used to 500 of you dying a year and this is the new normal until we fix it a few years from now.

And this violence has not been going on for half a century, are you seriously? The amount of murders in this city has fucking doubled in the last 7 years.

We have never, and I literally mean NEVER had back to back years of 500 murders before the last two years. Never had three years of 490+ which is the last three.

There was only one year before the previous two where we had 500 murders, which was 1990. The population at the time was 1.586 mil, which is literally more than the population we have now, albeit slightly, but we still have more bodies today. This means homicide per capita is higher than it ever was in the 90s, fucking wild.

We are not at the status quo, we are well fucking above it. Again, this is why trying something new makes sense, we are dealing with unprecedented homicides. But hey, if you ain't feeling it I suppose it's just business as usual in the city, screw those poor ppl amirite?

0