|
December 07, 2006
Spraying and praying (for "help")
There's nothing like waking up and having the subject of a blog post staring you in the face. Right now I'm listening to helicopters for the second morning in a row. Twenty minutes ago, I went into my yard, pointed the camera skyward, and took this picture: There's a huge manhunt here (and even some national attention) because a "prowler" shot at the cops recently, and he's believed to be hiding somewhere. Neighbors are terrified as they're not used to stuff like this, so the media have obliged by blaming guns for crime: ...the growing problem of gun violence has everyone from legislators to community activists wringing their hands, looking for answers.Lockdown? Nothing new about that idea around here.... Amusingly, leading local Philadelphia anti-gun wag (and mayoral candidate) Dwight Evans thinks the presence of an armed criminal in a low-crime suburb is an argument for disarming the neighborhood! Again, the Daily News: State Rep. Dwight Evans, D-Philadelphia, said both shootings illustrate a need for tighter gun control.I'll keep my eyes open, but the description is not much to go on. (But Coco and I are into being prepared....) The dynamics are nothing new. Whether by design or otherwise, Philadelphia youth gang members come into the neighborhood regularly, ostensibly to use the local gym near the train station. I've seen more and more thuggish behavior at the station and in the area near the gym, and recently, for the first time, I've seen graffiti tagging at the station. Hoping it was still there, I went to take a picture, but it's been freshly painted over: I don't know whether the paint-over is a response to crime, but what was there was typical gang tagging, not urban art. (Yes, I know the difference.) Not that the problem is graffiti, any more than it's "the guns" or youth basketball. (Although the nearby Saudi madrassa is another issue....) The problem is that some people are criminals. This particular criminal has only attracted so much attention because he shot at the cops in a nice neighborhood. I can remember when the focus was on crime, and on criminals. Now, violent crime has been rebadged rhetorically, with a meme called "gun violence." Fearful people are being misled and manipulated into thinking that their response to crime should be to give up their first -- and primary -- line of defense against it. I touched on this the other day, and I think it's worth repeating the words of John Longenecker: 'Governance' over guns and people who rise to meet their responsibility is a ruse to disarm individuals to pave the way to grow crime to the advantage of officials. In a very obvious way, the anti-gun crowd uses the crowd who refuse this burden to increase numbers of anti-gun voters. Minions. Minions by the millions.And my comment: While it's tough for me to believe that people would be gullible enough to imagine the government is going to protect their homes and families (especially during emergencies), denial is a very powerful phenomenon.It astounds me that anyone would think that the response to crime should be to take away a primary defense against it, but the "gun violence" meme, by shifting the focus from crime to a mere instrumentality allows this trickery to go largely unchallenged. I say "largely unchallenged" because I realize that even though bloggers like me might rant about it all the time, rants like this one mean little or nothing to the people who live -- and vote -- in fear. And fear is what it's all about. The following is a typical example of the fear-based reporting I try to address in this blog: Unlike the Philadelphia Daily News report, the above doesn't even have a description of the gunman. But they have an ominous picture of a gun! The idea is to take the natural fear people have of the gunman, and transform that into fear of guns. The logic, of course, is give up your guns and you'll be safer. Saying guns are the culprit makes about as much sense as saying it's graffiti. Or even athletics. Criminals can be expected to engage in activities of interest to them, which may include owning guns, graffiti tagging, or even basketball or football. Some of these activities are engaged in by the law abiding, but the distinction between guns and things like athletics or spray paint is that guns provide protection against crime. It's bad enough that anyone would think they cause crime. But to take them away from the law abiding in the name of "stopping crime," why, that's just too much. Might as well stop the sale of all paint to prevent "paint crime." That way, law abiding paint owners would never be able to paint it over, and they'd have to call the coverup authorities for "help." UPDATE: Today's Inquirer has more, including an interesting detail about the rather lopsided relationship in numbers of shots fired: After the first shots were fired, officers began closing in again on the gunman, Rutty said. Then Lower Merion police coming up Meadowood near South Ithan spotted him again.He fired five, and they fired only two? Doesn't sound like police overkill to me, although I think a little overkill then might have spared two days worth of overkill -- and overtime. MORE: As a commenter seems to be misunderstanding me, I should make it clear that I do not approve of graffiti, nor do I "equate graffiti-tagging to gun ownership." (I meant to compare the sale of paint with the sale of guns by way of argument ad absurdum. If it failed, my apologies.) The problem is criminals, and the reason I mentioned the graffiti is that it provided evidence of a criminal presence before the shooting occurred. Painting it over conceals a very unpleasant issue -- what are these young thugs doing there in the first place? UPDATE: Not all neighbors share my opinion that the criminal is the problem: Robin Valicenti, a director of CeaseFire PA, the Commonwealth's leading organization working to prevent gun violence, who coincidentally lives in the neighborhood, said, "This morning all our lives were turned upside down, even if just for a few hours. Children were scared, and felt unsafe all day long. We are all very lucky that no children in their beds were touched by the gunfire. I can only imagine how terrible it is in communities where shootings are commonplace, and where innocent lives are indeed lost in the crossfire. We must learn from this event, and work together with all people to address the rising tide of gun violence in our state and nation."If there is anything "we" should learn, it is that the police are not there to protect us. The duty of self defense is our own. And without guns, we're sitting ducks. As to the claim that "all our lives were turned upside down," I live here too, and my life was not turned upside down. Had the gunman come into my yard and started shooting, I'd have considered it my individual and civic responsibility to defend myself. I wish more people felt that way. MORE: My thanks to Pajamas Media for linking this post! posted by Eric on 12.07.06 at 08:40 AM
Comments
"benign attitude" towards graffiti? I HATE grafitti! It's ugly and illegal and I'd put the little buggers in jail. Please don't mistake my mocking analogy between gun control and paint control as support for graffiti. My point is that paint is a tool too. (And the presence of urban graffiti indicates the presence of gang activity. I was only sorry that I couldn't get a good shot of it.) While I think there is such a thing as urban art (which is not what I was talking about here), I still think it is a crime if painted without the owners's consent, and I am against all legal attempts to prevent property owners from painting it over. http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/002579.html I should probably should spend more time making sure I am not being misunderstood, but these damned posts are too long already. Eric Scheie · December 7, 2006 12:01 PM And analogies are tools, too. The graffiti analogy was a tool that just didn't work. Take it back to Home Depot and get a new one. But, other than that, your basic point about the news media's gun-o-phobia (calling Dr. Neologism, stat) was quite valid. Rhodium Heart · December 8, 2006 11:58 AM Unless I did not make myself clear, I did not draw an analogy between guns and graffiti. I analogized between banning guns and banning paint, just as I have analogized between banning guns and banning SUVs. BTW, the late Jeff Cooper used the term "hoplophobia" to describe the fear of guns. Eric Scheie · December 8, 2006 12:14 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
|
|
Normally I agree with much of what you write, but in this instance I have to strongly object to the benign attitude you have towards ...
Graffiti.
Graffiti is defacing property that does not belong to you. It is always wrong and it is always CRIMINAL. You cannot equate graffiti-tagging to gun ownership. Guns are tools. Tools are just that: they can be used for good or they can be used for evil. Graffiti is not a tool: it's unlawful destruction and intimidation.
There is no such thing as "urban art" graffiti. That's just pseudo-liberal rationalization for the failure to confront thuggery. I wish you would reconsider your position on this.