|
July 30, 2006
Same set of facts, completely different conclusions
I'm beginning to think that "gun violence" is the Philadelphia Inquirer's biggest issue. It's gotten to the point where nearly every Sunday's front page is devoted to this tedious topic, with nothing new to say. Yes, Philadelphia has a huge crime problem, and many people are shooting each other. There is a criminal culture which believes in using guns to settle disputes, and to the Inquirer (as well as people who agree with them) this means guns are the problem. In today's piece (part of a series titled "A Summer Under the Gun"), a local professor often said to be an expert in these matters makes a cultural observation which is hardly new, but which I think illustrates a serious problem posed by any attempt at analysis: The main job on the Street is drug dealer.True. People who sell drugs do so for the money, and to be cool. (My response is that relegalizing drugs takes away the profit, and probably some of the coolness.) Another factor the Inquirer has pointed out time and time again is the inescapable fact that having a gun makes people (including criminals) more powerful than if they didn't have a gun: In prison for armed robbery, Antwian comes across as a mild-mannered 19-year-old who doesn't talk hard-core street lingo. He said his home life was rough, with harsh physical discipline.I might even start to empathize a little bit there. No one should be picked on, and everyone has the right to self defense. But the decision to be armed in self defense is coupled with a responsibility. Firing shots to scare people "following an altercation" is not responsible. It is criminally irresponsible. Or doesn't that matter? Anyway, if you read on, his criminal irresponsibility gets worse and worse. (And silly logical me, I don't even think it's the fault of the gun "availability"): He did a little drug dealing in Germantown before moving to the Northeast, but "it wasn't really me. I just did it to get a quick couple dollars."Let's assume for the sake of argument that the above factual scenario is absolutely correct. I have a question: Is it an argument for gun control, or against gun control? That's the whole problem in a nutshell. For some people, it is self apparent that it is an argument for gun control, while for other people it is a reason to be armed. To me, the fact that there are people who'd hold a gun to my head and demand money is a good reason to be armed. Yet to others, the presence of people who behave that way is an argument against anyone having guns. Even law abiding people. I don't see any way to bridge this hopeless gap. It reminds me of the sad fact I discussed yesterday: some people would take Coco away from me because bad people own pit bulls. posted by Eric on 07.30.06 at 12:32 PM
Comments
"The fundamental question is what you believe about humanity." Nice summary. It seems to me that this Locke Vs. Hobbes argument is at the root of most sociopolitical debates. Mick · July 31, 2006 02:28 AM What the PI doesn't say, but implies, is that if there were no guns these criminals wouldn't be criminals. They'd never use knives or clubs instead. Grand Stand · August 2, 2006 12:34 AM I can't speak for the Inquirer, but the argument I often hear is that it would be better if criminals were armed only with knives and clubs, because fewer people would die. And we'd be more like England, where street crime is blamed on victims for carrying Ipods. Eric Scheie · August 2, 2006 12:04 PM ...or cell phones. Grand Stand · August 2, 2006 05:51 PM I'd carry this cell phone: Eric Scheie · August 2, 2006 11:37 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The fundamental question is what you believe about humanity. If you believe that humanity, left to its own devices, is more good than evil, and is capable of greater highs than lows, you believe that human liberty is a sustainable, even attractive, state of being.
What makes for a better world? Taking guns away from everyone, or giving them to everyone?
One thing I should note is that drug dealers don't make minimum wage, on average. That factoid, and others, from Freakonomics.