You must log in or register to comment.

TreeMac12 OP t1_j5ueigv wrote

A Google search of the alleged ringleader reveals a PPP loan.


ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vo05v wrote

PPP was all grift and poorly administered. Tons of shit like this happened and no one talks about it. Everyone got mad at checks for people but no one cares that billions in PPP went to scammers.


Hashslingingslashar t1_j5wdvlh wrote

I fucking wish I did PPP scam lol (not really because I’m a good person but still). The government isn’t going after anyone who stole less than like $25k because it’s less than the cost it would take to get that money back. Hundreds of thousands if not over a million people are going to get away with it.


Sage2050 t1_j5xu8gl wrote

My neighbor got a new car and renovated his fucking house and I'm over here not stealing from the government like an idiot


f0rf0r t1_j5zd5bq wrote

i mean we gave the airlines tens of billions of dollars and the govt isn't going to go after them either lol

it was literally the biggest fraud buffet in history

we missed a huge opportunity


mustang__1 t1_j5vub56 wrote

not all grift - some business did use it and did need it to maintain staffing levels without doing furloughs or layoffs, keeping the burden away from the swamped unemployment system. that said... yeah, poorly administered.


ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vukm0 wrote

I'm being hyperbolic when I say "all grift" because some did flow to needy businesses. But the vast majority was grift, and that's what I have a problem with.


hazeleyedwolff t1_j5x39ez wrote

And absolutely none of those tax dollars should have gone to churches, but millions did.


sttaffy t1_j5ygmux wrote

My dad and I own a business and at the time we're the only two employees, so we could base our loan only on our salaries, and we got both rounds of loans and had both forgiven. We sent it all to our independent contractors at the time, and then hired them W-2 when we were able to return to work.

Having done the paperwork, there was a lot of the 'honor system' involved, and I saw how we easily could have manipulated numbers or misrepresented things to receive more. It could have been more stringent, for sure.

That said, it kept food on a lot of carpenter's plates.

The fraud should be pursued with aggression. Fuck thieves.


ScoutG t1_j5wtw85 wrote

I don’t think the government cares because so much of that money went right back into the economy. It might not be fair, but it wasn’t about fairness toward individual people; it was about keeping the overall system going and keeping companies in business.


erdtirdmans t1_j5w4p6l wrote

A government program exploited by scammers!? 😱 Say it ain't so!


GreenAnder t1_j5ysoos wrote

Unfortunately this is a common administrative compromise. You can have slightly more lax administration, in which case you spend less on admin costs and can be sure people who need it got it. You can also have more strict administration, which costs more and will almost certainly create a barrier to people who actually need the money.

At the end of the day you need to ask yourself if it's more important that everyone who needs it gets it or that no one abuses the system.


ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5zhdkn wrote

I understand that no system is going to be perfect, but PPP was such a fucking shitshow. I touch on it often professionally and the amount of grift that happened is unconscionable.


Sage2050 t1_j5zk3cu wrote

This isn't an argument about means testing, you're muddying the water by framing it as such


EnemyOfEloquence t1_j5vrnfs wrote

Well then government shouldn't have forcibly shut down businesses. A lot of people were legitimately not allowed to work, and it was made to keep people employed.

It needed more oversight tho. If you want to audit something, the IRS should be looking into and making sure these were real companies.


shapu t1_j5vsqjj wrote

The problem isn't that PPP was created to keep people employed, or to keep idle employees paid. The problem is that PPP loans were made with little oversight, often to people who lied, and funds were not equitably or accurately distributed to the workers who were struggling.

It was a clumsy program that should never have existed. A much better solution would simply have been to distribute one month's worth of pay to everyone who reported income in the previous month, plus one month of earnings to everyone* with a schedule C, up to a cap.


ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vsh9u wrote

Most of the money went to solvent businesses and scammers. If the money went to places shutdown by the pandemic I wouldn't be upset. Small businesses that shutdown for years got a pittance along with ordinary people, while other businesses that were not affected by the pandemic got huge windfalls.


glitzychevy t1_j5v7lrz wrote

Is there a possibility it’s a different Angel mason?


[deleted] t1_j5v9ia9 wrote



glitzychevy t1_j5v9s1j wrote

Ahh then highly unlikely lol


TreeMac12 OP t1_j5vasp1 wrote

Poplar Street looks like it right on the border of the zip codes, but the business address could be not where she resides.


chewsterrr t1_j5w2ekx wrote

I'm not surprised about sketchy daycare centers in the city. My neighbor's deceased mom previously owned a non-profit daycare, and now his drug/heroin addict son runs the place. On top of that, the house mortgage has not been paid since her passing at the very beginning of the pandemic.


phillybreezus t1_j5x5iwj wrote

Most likely the day care doesn’t exist. Paper business spun up to get loans. Extremely common for COVID financial programs.


phillybreezus t1_j5x5dqa wrote

The guy I bought…ummm things from….said that he knew like four people who stopped pushing drugs and were helping people set up “businesses” to get EIDL and PPP loans. These were kids in north Philly. Obvious fraud. Rubber stamped.


SnapCrackleMom t1_j5uhttu wrote

My fellow parents: take this as an opportunity to praise your kids for making good choices. Our teenagers could be doing this, and they're choosing not to. Let them know you see that.

Do my kids roll their eyes and laugh when I tell them things like "hey good job not being part of a gun theft ring, I see you making good choices and I appreciate that"? Yes. But I also know they love being seen, and they appreciate that I see that they are good kids. Also, it always starts good conversations.


saintofhate t1_j5vdohm wrote

Positive reinforcement goes a lot further than negative. A lot of people don't realize that.


LFKhael t1_j5uerrp wrote

> In each robbery, the group got into the gun store, broke glass display cases, grabbed numerous guns and fled, the DA's said. 

Really? I've been to Taco Bells with more security than this.


Ng3me t1_j5ugrg4 wrote

Any gun store that has guns stolen from them should be heavily heavily scrutinized. Gun store security procedures should be airtight. Should be inspected often and owners held accountable for issues. These places leak guns.


mikewarnock t1_j5upgrc wrote

Agreed. There should be strict liability when it comes to gun thefts. Probably impossible to get a law like that passed in PA though.


Delfiasa t1_j5wde4i wrote

Right? Meanwhile all the marijuana dispensaries have armed guards, require ID for entry, double door entry system, etc.


Narwhalbaconguy t1_j5vztrc wrote

Agreed. All gun stores should be required to lock the guns away, not just the store. ESPECIALLY when nobody’s there.


[deleted] t1_j5uh5xt wrote



LFKhael t1_j5uioay wrote

The people who stole are going on trial, and quite likely to fairly serious prison time.

The Taco Bell off the North Philly BSL stop had more security to hand over a fucking bean burrito.

Meanwhile, there's 60 fire arms on the street that we're most likely not recovering because these stores treated security like a joke.

They're going to get paired with stolen cars and used for crimes that will be a nightmare for both the PPD's clearance rates and the DA's conviction rate.


Ng3me t1_j5uika4 wrote

Another “responsible gun owner against people asking gun owners to behave responsibly.”

Look these places sell dangerous deadly weapons and they are largely left to do whatever they want. We’ve had huge settlements against pharmaceutical companies and distributors for releasing opioids into our communities. The NRA makes sure no gun sellers face any similar consequences. It’s wild. It is well within reason to scrutinize how guns are stored in these stores.

Also, there are already laws against stealing from gun stores and these people are being investigated and pursued.


nnn62 t1_j5uom5k wrote

Huge settlements against pharmaceutical companies that didn’t even put a dent in their pockets due to how much those scumbags made from pushing those opiates. Settlements don’t do dick, you need stringent regulation.


sakamake t1_j5v4eig wrote

Yup. Even calling them "huge" settlements is just smoke and mirrors. They aren't meant to punish these companies or change the behavior, they're just a way of making sure the government gets a (relatively small) cut.


TreeMac12 OP t1_j5ug0eb wrote

Then busted by their own Instagrams:

"Through the use of numerous investigative techniques including interviews, physical surveillance, video surveillance, social media analysis and cellphone data and records, the investigation found that several members of a known, neighborhood-based juvenile street gang in Philadelphia—called “54th Street”—were responsible for the three completed gun store burglaries and one attempted gun store burglary in Montgomery and Bucks counties."


point_breeze69 t1_j5us5i6 wrote

Yea but they were actually from 53rd st they just named themselves 54th st to throw the cops off their trail.


EnemyOfEloquence t1_j5vrvma wrote

Remember kids, when committing violent felonies leave the phones at home.


MizterMazer t1_j5w38se wrote

Nah don't remind them. We need these idiots to forget.


Genkiotoko t1_j5utlg8 wrote

The fact that the average corner store jeweler has tighter security and safe storage practices than several gun stores is an issue.


WhyNotKenGaburo t1_j5upeou wrote

I know, right!? Founding Fathers Outfitters (profiled in the video half way down the article) has two glass doors with flimsy locks, a bunch of windows on the side that would be relatively easy to climb through, and seemingly no evidence of roller gates on any of them. I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem that glass panes would be a great choice for primary security at a gun store.


felis_scipio t1_j5vd837 wrote

I’ve used them as an FFL a number of times, great store for doing a transfer but yeah that front door is barely there. During the day they have stuff out in the display cases and on the wall, I guess I always assumed that stuff was put away at night in a more secure room in the back or something.


WhyNotKenGaburo t1_j5wnl92 wrote

>I guess I always assumed that stuff was put away at night in a more secure room in the back or something.

One would think that this would be a reasonable assumption, but alas...


Civil_Peak t1_j5wso4x wrote

I think for the ATF regulations (who regulate firearm stores) there rules that says that if they are left out then they need to be moved to a secure room or basically a vault. So If I'm correct in remembering that then really they should be visited by the ATF to make sure they understand the rules.


AbsentEmpire t1_j5uw04e wrote

Gun stores with such lax security should be held criminally liable. Like what the actual fuck?!

How is it legal to allow gun stores to have zero security for their products when corner stores have tighter security for fried rice.

Fucking ridiculous!


PhillyPanda t1_j5v4yte wrote

They’d need to enact the laws first. NJ has a framework for gun store security, PA does not. You’d be under negligence type laws.


ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vooek wrote

Continental Armory was misreported, the thieves couldn't get past the security gate.


schmii t1_j5ulezf wrote

I don't get why a gun store is allowed to store their guns like that when they are closed. Why not operate like a jewelry store where everything is taken out of the cases and locked up?


LFKhael t1_j5ulvxg wrote

Because guns are toys in America.

Jeweler's Row takes their business seriously.


SophiaofPrussia t1_j5whn6f wrote

Forget about jewelry. Have you ever tried to buy a Gilette Venus razor refills at CVS? It takes like ten minutes and two employees just to unlock the case! I feel like guns should be at least as secure as the razor refills, no?


TreeMac12 OP t1_j5v7ta1 wrote

More from the Inquirer:

"The group, mostly teens, wielded guns openly on social media and in music videos of rap songs in which they bragged about killing their rivals and terrorizing their neighborhoods..."

"...Mason, Terrell’s mother, repeatedly attempted to prevent police from serving search warrants at her home, the affidavit said. At one point, she texted her other son, Purnell, to remove stolen guns from their home before detectives arrived."

"The fourth suspect, Hall, was arrested after she used one of the stolen guns from Founding Fathers to shoot at her brother during an argument outside their home, according to the affidavit."

Both articles say only two adults were charged, but then list three people over the age of 18:

"Two adults and 11 eleven juveniles were charged in the investigation, but only four were named in the affidavit: Angel Mason, 40, Elijah Terrell, 16, Donte Purnell, 22, and Liv Hall, 18. "


CroatianSensation79 t1_j5vhd1i wrote

Wow she’s a shitty parent. Fucking awful.


TreeMac12 OP t1_j5vk6kd wrote

I wish the Inquirer would provide links to said videos.


CroatianSensation79 t1_j5vle5z wrote

Same but I’m blocked by their paywall since I don’t subscribe so I only get a few free articles


MizterMazer t1_j5w23oc wrote

News articles like that should be free. Not saying the whole website has to be free but when crime and safety is a major concern then the public has a right to know free of charge.


Little_Noodles t1_j5vbthl wrote

I’m reading it as “the group that showed up to steal the guns was mostly teens, with two adults” but additional adults were named in the affidavit that are associated with the group, and may have provided assistance before or after the burglaries.

For example, “Angel Mason, 40, faces charges connected to thefts of firearms from Pennsylvania gun stores.”

It is an awkward section though, and does require interpretation


TreeMac12 OP t1_j5vd5bj wrote

The Inquirer also misspelled the word "bragged," but I corrected the typo in the cut and paste.


jlknap1147 t1_j5w098r wrote

The worst part of this is, they most likely did and will contribute to deaths by firearm in their own community.


Spoons_N t1_j5w7s74 wrote

Jfc when are parents going to be charged


markskull t1_j5uqujs wrote

Wait wait wait wait...

The guns were stored in GLASS display cases? The stores had their guns stolen because they were locked up like video games in a Wal-Mart?

Why don't stores have to lock-up firearms the same way people with kids need to lock them up? If you have a kid in your home and own a weapon, and the kid gets the weapon, you're liable for anything and everything that happens. Why aren't stores treated the same way with theft? Why aren't there storage laws that mean you need to lock these things up more when being sold like this?!

And lets get this clear: This gang is a problem and I'm thrilled they're locked-up, but... wow. This is a problem!


StubbornLeech07 t1_j5uv1n3 wrote

> Why don't stores have to lock-up firearms the same way people with kids need to lock them up? If you have a kid in your home and own a weapon, and the kid gets the weapon, you're liable for anything and everything that happens.

That is not true for PA. There is no federal or PA safe storage law.

While 27 states and the District of Columbia have made it illegal for parents to carelessly leave weapons around children that are not supervised, Pennsylvania is not one of them. For a parent or guardian to face criminal charges after a minor uses their weapon, the prosecution must be able to show that the adult intentionally gave the gun to the minor. This is very difficult to prove and may be the reason why the Office of Attorney General has not seen even one case involving this law in recent years.

Now I personally believe there should be a safe storage law federally or at the PA state level but don't see that happening any time soon.


markskull t1_j5uwoaj wrote


You know, after that 6-year-old brought a gun to school to shoot his teacher, I kept hearing there were all these laws in place that punished the parents for being careless with their guns. That's kinda shocking.


User_Name13 t1_j5uo02r wrote


"Montgomery County DA Kevin R. Steele, Bucks County DA Matthew Weintraub, ATF officials and the Springfield Township Police Chief announced the arrests of two adults and 11 juveniles related to three burglaries and an attempted burglary of gun stores."

The 2 adults will do hard time, the 11 juveniles will gets slaps on the wrist.

Most of the people involved in this criminal conspiracy will get a slap on the wrist, because they'll be tried as juveniles.

A lot of the carjackers are juveniles for this very reason.

Gangs recruit teens to do these crimes for this very reason, it just sucks to see their plan work.

Like, how many gun stores does a 16-year old have to burglarize before he's charged as an adult?


AbsentEmpire t1_j5ux433 wrote

Well at least they're getting prosecuted by a DA who will actually level the strongest charges they can get.

Krasner would already have dismissed them and apologized for the inconvenience.


Lunamothknits t1_j5vaf0j wrote

Did you not get far enough in this to see that the DAs where they're being charged have let the adults out of bail?


AbsentEmpire t1_j5vbihd wrote

Bail is not dropping charges


Lunamothknits t1_j5vek3p wrote

Not the point, you're acting as if this isn't standard operating procedure everywhere, not just with the DA here.


mortgagepants t1_j5up5gq wrote

the solution isn't to charge the 16 year old as an adult, the solution is to punish the buyers. some people like to steal, but most people steal for monetary gain. if they don't get any money for it, it will stop.


TrentonMakes t1_j5urp9m wrote

No, charging as an adult is a pretty good solution in this scenario.


Glystopher t1_j5usix2 wrote

Agree…. Also it looks like not only the guys are involved but now the girls are too? Possibly someone’s whole family. Angel looks like the matriarch of the thing, after all she was running a daycare. (See other link ITT about PPP loan funds)


mortgagepants t1_j5uv4d1 wrote

ok- 7 years. just be careful, because when you start demanding maximum sentences, make sure you know you're subject to them too.


GooFoYouPal t1_j5uyxde wrote

lol, I’ll take my chances…


mortgagepants t1_j5v0va9 wrote

ok. you ever make a mistake on your taxes? felony tax evasion $100,000 penalty and 5 years in jail.

i'm sure you don't mind taking your chances when it is other people getting locked up, but it probably seems a little different for you huh?


GooFoYouPal t1_j5v27fu wrote

Bro, ppl that make “mistakes” on their taxes don’t get locked up for 5 years lol, BELIEVE me. I know that doesn’t fit your narrative and all…


mortgagepants t1_j5v2xwh wrote

lol you just made my point for me. thank you for understanding.


GooFoYouPal t1_j5v3po4 wrote

Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but cmon man, you’re being pedantic, comparing a mistake on one’s taxes to knowingly participating in a criminal enterprise seeking to flood an already extremely distressed city with even more gun violence. Like, seriously.


mortgagepants t1_j5v55gd wrote

i was actually referring to stealing cars in this case. but more broadly to giving out the maximum penalty for everything. like some people are gonna get leeway, understanding, exception to the rule, while some 16 year old kid is gonna get locked up for 7 years for a fucking kia.

the gun thing is a serious issue, and whoever is buying or inducing these kids into this needs to really be punished for sure.


GooFoYouPal t1_j5vj0uf wrote

I realize this might blow your mind, but have you EVER considered that there is no arch-criminal/ Keyser Soze type “buying” or “inducing” them to do shit. They are fully aware that stealing peoples shit at gunpoint is wrong and carries consequences, everywhere except here anyway, and YET, they still, somehow, make the decision to do it anyway.


mortgagepants t1_j5ymtdp wrote

have you ever considered they're broke, hungry, bored, abused?


GooFoYouPal t1_j5z8z44 wrote



mortgagepants t1_j5zlmbf wrote

i guess not man. every 16 year old in the city who commits a crime is doing it for pure violence and malice.


Theachillesheel t1_j5xks7f wrote

We just making false equivalences now huh


mortgagepants t1_j5ync8t wrote

lol no- we're making equal equivalancies. OP said they should get max time for their crimes. i'm just trying to show you giving everyone the maximum might come back to bite them.


Theachillesheel t1_j5ypfr8 wrote

No because a mistake on your taxes isn’t a crime. It never was. Out of college, I worked for an accounting firm and people made mistakes on their tax returns all the time. All they got was a call or mail from the IRS asking for a correction. You’re exaggerating like shit just to make a point. A mistake on your tax return is not the same (and never will be) the same as theft. You’re literally comparing apples to oranges.


mortgagepants t1_j5ypvbv wrote

if it is a mistake then fine. how about you paid the baby sitter over $600 this year without a W9? maybe you used the company card to fill your tank before going on vacation?

you're sitting here telling me 16 year old kids should go to jail for grand theft auto for 7 years...okay- are we going to start requesting the maximum penalty for all law breakers all the time? because everybody is fine with maximum sentencing until they make a mistake.


Theachillesheel t1_j5yrz5f wrote

Now you’re moving goalposts. Here’s how it goes after working with the IRS over a hundred times.. the IRS asks for a simple explanation, an amendment and even offers payment plans. Idk where people get these grand delusions that the IRS are impossible to work with and will smack felonies on you for the smallest things. They’re way more cooperative than the police.

And also I didn’t sit here and tell you anything. Now you’re getting lost in all your arguments and stirring shit with the wrong commenters. I just called you out on a poor comparison. Also, why would I even bother making my case with you anyway? You’re not here to see anyone else’s point of view, you’re just here to keep pushing your own ideas until someone agrees with you as evidenced by your dozens of comments that all say the same thing over and over.


mortgagepants t1_j5yso7f wrote

> Here’s how it goes after working with the IRS over a hundred times.. the IRS asks for a simple explanation, an amendment and even offers payment plans. Idk where people get these grand delusions that the IRS are impossible to work with and will smack felonies on you for the smallest things. They’re way more cooperative than the police.

this is exactly my point- people want to punish the fuck out of teens who make mistakes, but their own mistakes are "no big deal". but why are they willing to come down so hard on other people? for what reasons do people think their own mistakes are minor and can be negotiated, but when a child makes a mistake, they deserve to get punished as severely as an adult?

the point i'm making isn't about the IRS- the point i'm making is people feel so comfortable throwing the book at other people, but if someone tries to throw the book back, then we should really be looking at extenuating circumstances, exceptions to the rules, "a simple explanation".


Theachillesheel t1_j5z0x21 wrote

Look man I get your point but it’s still a false equivalence. The IRS is still a federal agency where people are mandated to submit their incomes. Are there people who try to fuck the system here and there? Sure. Are there people who make mistakes? Plenty. Comparing teenage burglary and theft is not equivalent to tax evasion for a couple main reasons you keep glaring over. Filing taxes is mandated and does not put anyone in physical harms way. Teens are not mandated to do shit but go to school. So when a child makes a mistake like you say, are you recognizing that they’re ruining a specific person’s life either physically or mentally? Because the IRS will make you pay your missed taxes.. how will a teenager that sold that car ever be able to payback the full value of that person’s car? Especially if there are things of sentimental value in it. Insurance never replaces full value and now your rates go up for no fucking reason other than because a teenager wanted some fast money without working. So where are their explanations? Can they simply explain to the courts they just made a mistake? Can they undo all of the physical and mental stress put onto the victims with an apology? Nope.

In this thread, you’ve made a point that they’re just teenagers but also throw people under the bus for their choices. You say something along the lines of people having their shitty Kia stolen but you never then look at the person who works low wages and spent years of their life to purchase that car only for a teenager to steal it and sell it off to whole sale purchasers. (Most which are from West Africa, so how can we even punish those illegal buyers? They’re off the radar) I’ve seen multiple people in this thread mention that they get your point of view yet you have not done the same for others. One of these kids can destroy someone’s livelihood but you fail immensely to understand that. This is why policy is so difficult.. because theres people who genuinely get hurt from things like this and can’t recover and then there’s you.. who argue for the teenagers who you never know will even be repeat offenders because they knew they would never be punished for committing crimes. I don’t know if you’ve ever been a victim to a crime like this, but it changes your views once you do experience it.


TrentonMakes t1_j5v08ct wrote

I’m not burglarizing gun stores then having said stolen guns tied to shootings so I’ll be ok


mortgagepants t1_j5v17ui wrote

as i said to somebody else, if you make a mistake on your taxes the maximum penalty is $100,000 fine and 5 years in prison.

i'd also like to point out the sheriff's department stole two guns. let me know when you want them tried as adults too.


TreeMac12 OP t1_j5v1tr7 wrote

> let me know when you want them tried as adults too

You can do that today.


User_Name13 t1_j5usbik wrote

> if they don't get any money for it, it will stop.

This is completely wrong.

People are stealing cars for joyrides so they get social media clout.

There's literally a TikTok social media challenge about stealing Kia's and Hyundai's for shits and giggles:

People commit crimes for clout all the time.

It's normal.

The only thing you can do to discourage anti-social, violent behavior like this is enact stiff sentences for offenders.

We've been doing the exact opposite of that in Philly since about ... 2018, when Krasner took over as DA.


mortgagepants t1_j5uus2c wrote

lol stiff sentences don't do shit for people stealing cars for fun.

if more policing was the key to stopping crime, our $750 million per year would make us one of the safest cities per capita in the country.


User_Name13 t1_j5uz0rj wrote

>lol stiff sentences don't do shit for people stealing cars for fun.

Uh, ... actually they do.

They provide harsh punishment for committing a given crime, thereby disincentivizing that activity.

When you remove the penalty for committing a crime, more people are going to commit that crime.

It's not exactly rocket science.

>if more policing was the key to stopping crime, our $750 million per year would make us one of the safest cities per capita in the country.

Stiff sentences.

The police don't charge and sentence criminals, that's Krasner, our DA who loves treating criminals with kid gloves. Judges are the ones who issue sentences.


mortgagepants t1_j5v05qw wrote

lol i was waiting to see some criminology statistics and shit. your compelling argument is "its not rocket science."

read a fucking book.


User_Name13 t1_j5v15m5 wrote


"The United States Sentencing Commission, using its access to massive amounts of data about thousands of federal criminal defendants over many decades, decided to test the effects of incarceration on recidivism. The commission chose to study 32,135 federal criminal defendants released in 2010. The study divided the defendants into five groups based on length of sentence: 24–36 months, 36–48 months, 48–60 months, 60–120 months, and more than 120 months. The commission then checked to see which of the released defendants committed new crimes during an eight-year follow-up period."

"The results were compelling. For defendants receiving a sentence of more than 60 months (five years), the odds of recidivism were 18 percent lower than a matched group of prisoners receiving shorter sentences. For defendants with sentences of more than 120 months (ten years), the odds of recidivism were 29 percent lower. These conclusions were statistically significant at p<0.001—a statistical measure that shows profound reliability. No statistically significant difference in recidivism was found for defendants serving less than 60 months."

"Contrary to current academic thinking, then, the length of a criminal’s sentence matters quite a bit in reducing future offending. Why are these findings so important? First, because they offer a stern rebuttal to the academic literature downplaying the effect of lengthy sentences; the commission even devotes an entire section of its report to assessing these studies. But perhaps more importantly, the commission’s findings are a blow to progressive prosecutors, who have been relying on flawed academic literature to push for lower sentences for just about every crime, even violent ones, claiming that reduced sentences will not cause more crime. One of the main proponents of this philosophy is Philadelphia district attorney Larry Krasner, who specifically criticized sentences longer than five years, promised that crime would drop if he avoided lengthy sentences, and scoffed at law enforcement officials who warned him of the consequences if he enacted his policies. Krasner delivered on his promises, dropping murder charges even in the case of video evidence and handing out lenient sentences. The predictable result: violent criminals have overrun Philadelphia, with murder soaring to an all-time record and police officers shot during a Fourth of July celebration."

>read a fucking book.

No need to be rude. We're having a discussion about policy, it's better to leave emotion out of it.


mortgagepants t1_j5v2rvp wrote

ah ok- you tell me it isn't rocket science that is fine, but me telling you to read a book hurts your feelings.

then, you link me a blog post written by a previous DA that now works at the manhattan institute, a conservative lobbying group most famous for promoting the "broken windows" ideology, that essentially removed 4th amendment rights from anyone police didn't like. they're also funded by the koch brothers, who are infamous for their family ties to nazi germany, soviet russia, reducing worker's rights, and disregard for environmental protections.

i can't tell if you actually believe this stuff, or you're just doing some kind of PR for the FOP.


User_Name13 t1_j5v3quf wrote

>but me telling you to read a book hurts your feelings.

Telling someone to "read a fucking book" is absolutely an insult.

You don't have anything to say about the findings of the study?

You're just going to attack the source?

Why don't you address the findings of the study?

Would that not be convenient to your narrative?

>or you're just doing some kind of PR for the FOP.

Nice, another insult.

It sounds like you don't have any actual points to make, you're just lobbing insults at people.


mortgagepants t1_j5v4syq wrote

telling me it isn't rocket science is an insult as well. and yeah, since i dont have time to run my own experiment, i absolutely have to criticize the biased source.

he even writes "contrary to prevailing wisdom" or some such...meaning there are many studies refuting his idea.

also, how or to whom is PR for the FOP an insult?


FasterThanTW t1_j5veo5m wrote

Lol, never fails. Always one dh in here caping for the criminals.


mortgagepants t1_j5vft9r wrote

16 year olds are kids. there is a reason we don't let them do adult shit, because they don't have fully developed brains. you want to let them drink, buy weed, drive cars, buy guns, vote, and join the army? fine, they're adults at 16.

you want to prohibit them from all that shit but then try them as adults because your shitty kia got stolen and the cops aren't doing shit to protect you from it, but you wont stand up to the cops, so you want to lock up a 16 year old? not ok.


FasterThanTW t1_j5wbfzw wrote

>16 year olds are kids. there is a reason we don't let them do adult shit, because they don't have fully developed brains. you want to let them drink, buy weed, drive cars, buy guns, vote, and join the army? fine, they're adults at 16.

Nope, I want to lock them up for doing that stuff.

Their parents too.


mortgagepants t1_j5yn0u8 wrote

lol do you have kids?


FasterThanTW t1_j5yr79n wrote

"unless you have kids, you just can't imagine how hard it is to raise them so that they don't go out in the middle of the night to break into gun stores over and over!"


mortgagepants t1_j5yrdx7 wrote

i mean i dont have kids either. but kids do stupid stuff, you really want to hold the parents responsible for everything they do? or just the egregious shit like robbing gun stores and stealing cars?


FasterThanTW t1_j5yroaw wrote

everything illegal.

i would lock you up too, for what it's worth. caping for criminals? straight to jail.


mortgagepants t1_j5yt0e8 wrote

hahah yeah fuck the 6th amendment! In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

also, fuck my first amendment too, right? you should head down to 5th and chestnut and check out the building there, it is full of these old documents.


FasterThanTW t1_j5ytf79 wrote

oop, you just got a year added to your sentence


mortgagepants t1_j5ywb7c wrote

philadelphia phascists gotta be some of the most messed up...the birthplace of the bill of rights.


ferrusmannusbannus t1_j5vz4ls wrote

Bro theres a dif between kids being kids and robbing and trafficking firearms lmao. I did dumb shit as a kid, fights, vandalism, graffiti. Thats stupid kid shit. At 16 you know better than to rob a gun store


mortgagepants t1_j5yn3nb wrote

i agree. the gun store robbery shit is bad, but you think they're keeping the guns?


TreeMac12 OP t1_j5ypt6d wrote

>the solution isn't to charge the 16 year old as an adult, the solution is to punish the buyers.

Why not both?


mortgagepants t1_j5yq0w2 wrote

because we as a society have decided 16 year olds are not full adults, so they're not held to the full consequences of their actions the way adults are.


sha1ashaska22 t1_j5vkhff wrote

Sure would be nice if the store was required to actually store this shit in a secure way.

I mean, fuck these kids and their gang, but its ridiculous that these guns sit unsecured in a glass display case.


ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vokaa wrote

Continental Amory was misreported. The perps could not get past the security gate.


RustedRelics t1_j5w9ryz wrote

Like how she wears a hijab to express her commitment to her faith and principled lifestyle. 🙄. No shame.


Darius_Banner t1_j5ybi2v wrote

These gun stores should also be charged for having shit security


CustardCarpet t1_j5w6wid wrote

Gang members should get life in prison, no parole!


Meandtheworld t1_j5wids5 wrote

Same set of people that robbed the one up on ridge?


huebomont t1_j5ymyp0 wrote

not enough hate for the gun stores here imo


ColdJay64 t1_j5un6tb wrote

Yet another example of how our current gun laws directly contribute to the country’s crime/homicide issue, no matter how much gun-lovers try to deny the obvious.


gnartato t1_j5v19s9 wrote

On behalf of gun owners, even the ones I don't agree with; we don't like gun stores getting robbed either.


ColdJay64 t1_j5vhwc0 wrote

By no means do I categorize all gun owners as illogical gun-lovers. I grew up in a law enforcement family with guns and we aren’t.


TreeMac12 OP t1_j5vbmhy wrote

>current gun laws

I'm not sure they were obeying current gun laws.


ColdJay64 t1_j5vek1y wrote

If they weren’t available for sale, they wouldn’t have been there to steal. A fairly simple concept.

Nearly 30,000 'crime guns' recovered in Philly came from just 21 federally-licensed area dealers:

If they weren’t available for sale, there would be far less on our streets.


ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vo8y8 wrote

So by "current gun laws" you mean the 2nd amendment? You think all gun sales should be prohibited?


ColdJay64 t1_j5vqqgt wrote

The 2nd amendment is a right to have a gun for self-defense, it says nothing about anyone who sells firearms. I do think the majority of gun sales should be prohibited.


ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vr4xi wrote

You don't think the right to have a gun for self-defense would be curtailed if selling guns was unlawful?


ColdJay64 t1_j5vsrb8 wrote

It would be for sure, but maybe the 2nd amendment needs some updating too. As we are all aware it was written 250 years ago - with muskets in mind.


ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vudpf wrote

Well then it would fail the undue burden standard. You can't just make it impossible for someone to exercise their rights and claim those rights still exist.

Anyway, it's fine if you think the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated, but it seems odd you'd say "current gun laws" as if this is a new thing or could be changed with ordinary state legislation. There is really nothing you can do beyond amending the constitution.


ColdJay64 t1_j5vvyor wrote

I am obviously not an expert but that’s debatable, it’s been ruled in multiple courts that the 2nd amendment does not extend protection to firearm sellers:

Hence why I referred to current gun laws, as my understanding was that changing state legislation could potentially have an impact here.


ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vyk2n wrote

This is true. But it doesn't extend to the point that gun sales could be prohibited. Gun dealers can be subject to more regulation because they aren't protected by the Second Amendment. But if they were so regulated that the were de facto prohibited, then that would be unconstitutional:

I don't think this has ever been tested, but I also don't think any state has ever tried to regulate gun stores so aggressively that they couldn't exist. If a state did I think it would be a virtual certainty that the Court (especially this Court) would strike it down as an undue burden on people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

It's also worth nothing that this article is discussing a split amongst different circuit courts regarding this issue (when different Federal Courts come to different conclusions about an issue). Thus, this issue is still up in the air and hasn't been settled by SCOTUS yet.


m16a t1_j5w1yjl wrote

The constitution gives the right to have an abortion for personal reasons, it says nothing about anyone providing them. I do think the majority of abortions should be prohibited.

Same energy. Rights are rights, don't compromise on any of them.


Little_Noodles t1_j5w8duk wrote

But even the most pro-choice advocates are in favor of regulating and requiring standards of abortion providers and medical centers to the ensure safety of patients.

Nobody is arguing that the bar for providing abortions (particularly surgical options), or for storing medicines and medical supplies, be as low as the current bar for opening a gun shop and storing inventory.

The analogy would be that gun shops should also be subject to rigorous standards to ensure safety, even if that means that fewer shops exist.

I’d agree that “we can legislate away guns by making it impossible to sell them” doesn’t pass muster.

But “stores that sell deadly weapons should be closely monitored and require a reasonable but high standard of care re: sales and inventory storage, even if it presents a burden” is not incompatible with pro-choice arguments.

If that opens the door to legislating them out of states and towns by creating unrealistic expectations solely to overburden existing enterprises, that’s on the right and their judges for opening that door and enshrining it as a precedent. Maybe they shouldn’t have done that.


pianoprofiteer t1_j5vqg4c wrote

Just say what you really mean..


ColdJay64 t1_j5vqvw9 wrote

Which is what? That our country has too many guns and it’s laughable that we are so divided on such a simple concept? Look at us compared to every other high-income country in the world - at their rate of gun ownership relative to both their overall homicide rates, and rates of homicide by firearm.


pianoprofiteer t1_j5wkgne wrote

So just say that you want to confiscate all the guns then. There’s more guns here than there are people, the rabbits out of the hat. You’re breaking the logic in your own argument by referencing “high-income countries”, the amount of wealthy people is a minuscule fraction of the total number in the US, most people are just getting by or poor which is the main problem here, along with people with mental issues and not fully developed brains (young people) having access to them. The problem isn’t inherently the guns themselves.

Fix the poverty and most of these problems go away. Confiscating all of the guns isn’t feasible, but none of this matters because doing either or those things isn’t in the interest of the people with power and money so they aren’t going to happen. So yeah this type of thing is going to continue to happen and that’s just the way it is, and can we stop with the empty posturing of “we need to something about all the guns”, it’s the nonsense of someone ignorant to the reality of the situation.


Glystopher t1_j5z7x14 wrote

Why don’t we start going after the power and money people. We need to start raising a fuss like the French, and bring out those uprights with the cute blade between them!


TheNightmareOfHair t1_j5vusq7 wrote

The more guns sold in the U.S., the greater the opportunity for them to end up in the hands of people who will misuse them. End of story. Theft from stores with lax security is just one of the many many many ways that happens.

There are about 10,000,000 firearms manufactured for domestic sale in the U.S. each year, and around 50,000,000 domestic firearm sales. Wondering how guns get into criminals' hands? Well, that's the first number in the equation right there. The other number is the rate of loss to the black market, which can be lowered if we decide as a country that we actually give a crap. (Microstamp all new firing pins; require a background check for sales of ALL guns, ammo, and parts; shut down Armslist and similar sites; give the ATF the tools they need; set up a system of competency testing, registration, and renewal in each state, similar to cars; safe storage requirements; firearms loss reporting requirements; strict liability; etc.)

Never vote for a politician who isn't serious about lowering both numbers.


Fattom23 t1_j5vzrww wrote

Astonishing how "lawful gun ownership" almost inevitably leads to guns getting into the hands of those who are not law-abiding gun owners. How could anyone have possibly foreseen that?