By Paul Clark
(aka motomynd)
On March 28, Michael H. Brownstein published a wonderful account titled “A Lesson in Hats.” It was an entertaining and heartwarming piece about Michael and his son successfully navigating what were apparently some dangerous streets, with the punchline being that it you wore the wrong cap with the brim turned the wrong way, then angry men might beat you senseless with a baseball bat – all because of their mistaken belief you had a gang affiliation they didn’t approve of.
The article and Michael’s follow-up comments all made for a tender, happy ending – but for some reason the article left me livid. Not angry. Livid. All in all, it was the most visceral reaction I’ve had to anything I’ve read in years.
My first thought: What the hell have we come to in this country, that we have to be worried about being beaten to death with a baseball bat just because of our choice of a hat? My second thought: And what the hell have we come to that we feel we should be tolerant of such behavior?
For reference, I didn’t grow up in a big city and we had no gangs fighting over turf. I grew up in Southwest Virginia, where we had rednecks, hotrodders, motorcycle gangs, and a whole bunch of “normal” kids who played sports, competed in chess, and lived typical teen lives.
| Never bring a knife – or a bat – to a gunfight |
In my high school years, the only breach of that civil ethic was when some members of a motorcycle gang, as part initiation ritual, abducted a teen couple from our local Pizza Hut parking lot. They tortured and beat the guy unconscious, tortured and repeatedly raped the girl, then shot them both and left them dead by a country road.
I can still remember sitting in our high school cafeteria, with our home room teacher explaining what had happened, and telling us, “If anyone ever tries to abduct you, make a run for it while other people are around. It’s better to take a bullet in the back in a crowded parking lot with potential help around, than out in the woods with no one around.”
That is a mental load to dump on high schoolers, and we did not take it well. After a couple of nasty encounters between bikers and angry teens, we hardly saw a motorcycle on the road the next few years, and it was probably a decade before any motorcycle gang member dared wear any “colors” in the region.
At the time, the double murder was deemed our regional “Crime of the Century,” and decades later, when I wrote a magazine article about the event using that same name, I was stunned at how people still reacted to it. It was the end of our lives of innocence, and I don’t think any of us will ever forget it as long as we live.
Is that what so upset me about Michael’s article, that I knew we would have reacted to someone being beaten to death with a baseball bat the same as we did to those fellow teens being tortured and killed? And that even today, I still don’t understand people not reacting forcibly to such a threat, and instead making light of it? Not sure, but it seems a possible point in the nexus.
Flash forward a few years and I was splitting time between two worlds that were as contradictory as they come: New York City, and the coal country of far, far, far Southwest Virginia. In NYC I was trying to establish a footing as a writer and photographer; in coal country I was trying to sell enough insurance to afford to continue my quest for fame and fortune in NYC.
My NYC circles were of course very liberal, and I was burnishing my liberal credentials through environmental activism, getting involved in a protect-the-seals Greenpeace effort, trying to document unwarranted police attacks on gay and lesbian night clubs, and in general covering every non-mainstream storyline I could find. In coal country there were no liberal circles, so I was mainly trying to do my job and survive the friction that inevitably built around me because I was driving a Porsche and wearing a three-piece suit where no one else did that.
By sheer wild happenstance I stumbled into the opportunity to start writing about organized crime and its atrocities relating to control of NYC’s trash disposal at the same time a mafia family took interest in the Southwest Virginia coal industry. And Buckshot, my one friend in coal country, was in charge of security for the company being targeted. Talk about the definition of nexus, there you go.
Buckshot explained the situation: “These guys say we are lucky we haven’t been having any problems with work accidents or equipment breakdowns, and if we hire them, we can stay lucky. They seem to think we are on the verge of becoming unlucky.”
“And how do they get away with this?” Buckshot asked.
I explained how the mob was well-connected well up the political and law enforcement ladders, and everyone was afraid to take them on because they never knew who all might be involved.
His reply was inelegant, but to the point: “It sounds like those people need to grow some balls, get some guns, and put an end to that bullshit.”
If only it were that simple, I tried to explain.
“It is,” he said, “you just wait and see.”
And sure enough, over the next three years, a fair amount of “mob muscle” made the trip from the Northeast to Southwest Virginia, and most of it vanished mysteriously. In the end the protection racket and mob control of the coal industry never took root, but organized crime ran trash collection and made a fortune in the Northeast from that endeavor and from protection schemes for decades to come.
I never thought I would agree with the way anything was done by what is generally dismissed as “the redneck leadership” of far Southwest Virginia, but on this one, I think maybe they got it right. Especially compared to what went on in the Northeast for decades, thanks to the best efforts of corrupt politicians, crooked cops, and judges and lawyers who openly abused the legal system for the benefit of the criminals the system was supposed to be putting behind bars.
| Copyright © 2021 by Paul Clark |
I read Paul and Ken (yesterday) and Michael (March 28). All very well written and very distressing. My very smart engineer friend Tom now lives in bucolic rural PA near State College, where he grew up, like Paul, hunting and fishing. A very nice person engaged in family and good works.
ReplyDeleteHe is also a Born Again Christian who carries a pistol to defend himself in a feared chance encounter with a bad guy. He repeatedly encourages me to get a gun.
Ken would call him a bibliopath. I can’t get a good explanation of how you can be devoted to the teachings of Jesus and ready to kill your wayward neighbor at the same time.
That’s the world we live in. Where good behavior is based on fear that the other guy is willing to shoot you.
Neil, studies tell us that conservatives, especially extremes, are generally more fearful than liberals. This is way an overgeneralization, of course, but the conservative view has always been more wary of "the other," whether of physical appearance, origin, foreign nations, etc., hence a greater perceived need for a gun.
DeleteMe, I'm horrified to remember that in many communities people can conceal-carry on public streets, and at this moment many legislatures are looking to allow more and more guns in public. This makes me afraid to go out – for the first time in my life. Guns frighten me, and I have the experience of two family members to explain that. Both situations were of "law abiding citizens," blah blah, and both ended in death.
Watch the Supreme Court's decision in the NY case coming up, and be very afraid.
Sorry to depart from my usual cheery self.
Neil,
DeleteI struggle to follow the logic of why we should be so concerned for the well-being of "wayward" neighbors who would maliciously stalk and kill someone with a baseball bat or any other weapon, but we are not supposed to be understanding of people who choose to protect themselves from those "wayward" neighbors.
When I lived in a gated community in Arlington, Virginia and drove to an office on Pennsylvania Avenue that was staffed with armed security, I was also smug in my liberal outlook: although I was conveniently overlooking that others were providing the security that I took for granted.
When I returned to the neighborhood where I grew up and discovered it had changed drastically from the safe place I remembered as a child, I learned I had to abandon my "pie in the sky" big city liberal idealism and be prepared for the harsh realism of where I now live. Yesterday afternoon, two people armed with knives attacked an innocent pedestrian six blocks from my house: he shot them both. It is unfortunate they were injured, but they created the situation; I'm glad he was prepared and is alive today, instead of being a dead martyr to naivete.
Hoping something won't happen is not the same as preparing in case it does happen. Hoping generally works well in high-end neighborhoods that are well-insulated from the risks of the outside world; on the streets the less fortunate travel on a daily basis, preparation matters.
Cynthia, I don't think the concept of self-defense in general, and guns in particular, is influenced as much by liberal versus conservative beliefs, as it is by the reality of where someone lives.
DeleteIn the 1980s I spent a lot of time in South Miami, in areas that were indeed very safe, and my liberal friends had very strong beliefs about gun control. When drug-crime rates soared and "the Marielitos" arrived and property values plummeted, the standing joke became "an anti-gun liberal is someone who just moved down here from NYC and hasn't been robbed at knifepoint - yet." I was shocked to see many of my friends transition from "anti-gun liberals" to buying over-the-top weaponry that seemed almost absurd in its capabilities. Their politics and lifestyles and other liberal beliefs were not swayed; they simply made a change in attitude about personal protection based on what was happening around them.
Yes, it does matter where one lives when considering attitudes toward gun ownership. If one lives in Wyoming, for example, it would be easy to feel isolated and far from ready aid in crises. I don't blame people in these situations for having guns for protection----it's a life so different from mine. But in crowded communities, I believe that more guns is the opposite of a solution to violence.
DeleteUnfortunately, the only solution to gun violence is long-term hard work to change attitudes from deep in our psyches. This work will take many forms and, like racism, the attraction toward anger, hatred, suspicion, revenge and even entitlement (she dissed me so I get to kill her)---will not die easily. And every single one must commit to it. Heaven help us all.
Cynthia, given the many centuries of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (and Catholic) devotion to fomenting hatred, warfare and genocide, and given the American devotion to "supersizing" just about everything, we are probably fortunate that Americans are killing "only" 11,000 or so fellow Americans every year. Europeans seem to have somehow managed to get their emotions mostly under control in regard to anger and violence and have greatly lowered their rate of violent crime; let's hope Americans can manage to do the same: quickly.
DeleteAbout your Wyoming example: I have done long trail runs and extended hikes in Africa and Alaska, and never even considered carrying a weapon. Yet I seriously ponder the level of risk in our "reverse de-gentrifying" neighborhood when I take my son to a local park that is now slathered with graffiti from two competing gangs trying to claim it as their own private turf. In my experience, we are generally at less risk in sparsely populated places than amongst crowds. The combined efforts of grizzly bears, lions, leopards and lightning strikes probably kill less than 1,000 people in a year; Americans kill nearly that many Americans each month.
I'm a bit surprised that you don't mention the latest group who have to fear being beaten to death with a baseball bat, or shot, or run out of business establishments, all because of their choice of a hat, or a tee-shirt. And they aren't liberals, either. Is it OK to do that to someone you despise, but not OK if you agree with them?
ReplyDeleteRoger, as far as I know, it is illegal to threaten any member of any group with a baseball bat, or threaten to shoot them or run them out of a business based on their attire. That said, I am confused about what group you are referring to.
DeleteIt is in fact illegal, but has been being done to those who chose not to hate Donald Trump sufficiently to suit certain other groups like ANTIFA, BLM and the like for the last 4 plus years. No one has been so vilified, so attacked, so demeaned, injured, beaten and even killed, while a disgusting number of Americans have not only not been outraged but have egged them on. I am no fan of Trump, but I have been horrified by the personal attacks, the doxxing, the protests at the homes of his supporters, running people out of restaurants, while opposition politicians openly call for them to be confronted, "get in their faces", "We know who you are and we are coming for you," outright incitement to riot. People who call themselves anti-fascists using fascist street-crime tactics. Krystalnacht wasn't a protest; it was a RIOT. The fact it was organized by a political party is irrelevant; they fact these riots have been organized or encouraged by the opposition party IS relevant, as well as the outside funding from the global left. All I want is safety and equality of such safety for ALL Americans, not just those I agree with.
DeleteRoger, I interject myself into your exchange with moto to myself admit unjustified obliviousness to the vilifications you allude to. Thank you for raising this issue. And I can think of no one better than moto for you to discuss it with. Have it, better informed colleagues than I! Enlighten us!
DeleteRoger, you are horrified by the personal attacks on Trump and his supporters - even though they came as a direct result of the hatred and venom he and his followers spewed at everyone from John McCain to the media to the voters who dared vote against him and the few honorable Republicans who stood their ground and refused to break the law to overturn elections to give him a corrupt victory? There is an old saying along the lines of "you reap what you sow" and while some of the responses to Trump may, or may not, have been a bit over the top, let's remember he is the man who initiated the racist, sexist, hostile and dishonest rhetoric that inspired others to want to fight back in the same manner. He and his supporters and enablers started the fight; he won the first several rounds; then he lost: while I respect your open-minded outlook, I can't personally muster any indignation if someone beat a bully and his henchmen at their own game.
DeleteYour last line - "All I want is safety and equality of such safety for ALL Americans, not just those I agree with." - I fully agree with. But if people go out of their way to provoke a fight, are we supposed to feel sorry for them if they lose it? Derek Chauvin will probably have a rough time in prison: should we feel sorry for him? If he had done his job properly, instead of spending nine minutes killing George Floyd, he wouldn't be going to prison and he wouldn't have to deal with whatever comes with it.
Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani and their buddies at Fox "News" et al, spent a decade creating and spreading the "birther" lie to discredit President Barack Obama; if someone got even, good for them. It would be wonderful if people on both sides of every issue always took the ethical and honest route to making their case; but when one side spends 15 years spreading lies, shouldn't they be held accountable first, instead of the side that finally retaliates?
Most of what you have presented is the party line, and I hate to say it, but much of it is simply not true; a construct created by butt-hurt losers who truly believed they had the RIGHT to crown Hillary Clinton. Don't look at me; I wrote in Sanders. And it was Hillary Clinton that started the birther movement, in her primary against Obama, but we should have voted for her? There is not only no evidence that Trump was ever a racist, there is ample evidence to the contrary.
Delete"Former Vice President Joe Biden wrongly claimed President Donald Trump has “yet once to condemn white supremacy, the neo-Nazis.”
Trump drew criticism for his condemnation of “hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides” after a rally organized by a white nationalist in Charlottesville in 2017, and for saying there were “very fine people on both sides.” But, contrary to Biden’s claim, the president twice specifically condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and he has repeated that condemnation since." FactCheck.org. Did you get that? He "drew criticism" for his CONDEMNATION OF BIGOTRY AND VIOLENCE ON BOTH SIDES. How the hell does condemning all bigotry and hatred draw criticism? Because the criticisers wer lying, and reported it as fact. "Can we once and for all kill off the distortion that Donald Trump called white supremacists “very fine people”? In the very same comments people are always quoting from, Virginia, Trump said, "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists." President Trump denounces white supremacists and militia groups, has always denounced them and always will. Because that is the truth...It is clear from the full statement that President Trump was not making a distinction between the right and left, but between radicals of all types versus those who protest peacefully. This fits into a long American intellectual tradition of condemning the radicalism of the right and left." James Robbins, USA TODAY-not exactly FOX News now is it?
Roger,
DeleteNo, USA Today is not Fox News, but James Robbins built his career in conservative media, some of which – such as the National Review and The Washington Times – frequently make Fox News seem almost liberal by comparison. Using Robbins as an example of objective political reporting is not unlike saying we should believe everything Antifa has to say about community policing.
Going point/counterpoint down a long list of questionable claims by Robbins – a Google search quickly discredits the claim about Hillary spawning “the birther movement” for example – is not unlike people going to the Bible to settle arguments. In the end one person cherry picks a few words of biblical “facts” that support their opinion, and they choose to overlook the rest of the story. Then whoever they are arguing with does the same, and both come out believing what they already believed because they find just enough to support what they want to believe.
In my case for example, I draw my line because I heard Trump verbally attack and disparage John McCain when he was dying of cancer, and discredit others who served in the military, and for me, that’s all I need to dismiss him as a person of merit. McCain served his country in the military, during the darkest part of the Viet Nam era, when he could have easily avoided such. Trump found a way (shin splints, I think it was) to avoid serving. John McCain also served his country with distinction in Congress, and worked “across the aisle” to actually make the legislative process work. Trump is the most politically divisive person I can think of in my lifetime, and it is very reasonable to say he completely mishandled the Covid pandemic and helped cause the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Maybe there are some peripheral positive aspects to Trump and to his presidency, but after the way he treated McCain when he was dying of cancer, especially after McCain had served his country with distinction his whole life, I don’t really care.
I can’t even begin to understand the mindset of either the perpetrator or the victim or the “possible” victim who carries a gun “just incase” he’s a victim.
ReplyDeleteI don’t even understand why the labels Liberal or Conservative are put on any of these involved other than Republicans want guns and others don’t!
For me it’s like being on an alien planet when I read these accounts! Just because you grow up shooting and hunting ( which infact I did but in the UK) doesn’t mean you should have the mentality that you NEED to be armed!
I don’t ever remember anyone being shot but I did sadly did know two girls who were abducted and murdered in the woods (he was caught and suitable punished - legally!) neither were shot!
I also don’t ever remember in my youth and beyond anyone being knifed although we can “mods” and “rockers” who clashed every weekend for a “bust up”
The world today is meaner and here in the USA very much more dangerous thanks to the readily availability of guns. When will this country wake up and realize you are not the Wild West but sadly that’s the mindset and it’s not a great look to the rest of the world!
Penelope, the "mindset" is indeed the problem, but until that mindset is somehow miraculously "cured" those of us living in the real world have to be prepared to deal with whatever that mindset brings us.
ReplyDeleteI usually connect sweeping, uninformed generalizations with conservative politicians trying to create wedge issues to steal a few votes, yet you throw out one yourself: "Republicans want guns and others don't!" Really? You might want to look up some facts about gun ownership among Democrats before labeling that theory as a fact.
We all wish we didn't have to worry about our personal safety. If the American mindset ever becomes more like attitudes in Iceland and much of the rest of Scandinavia, hopefully we will all be able to enjoy such bliss.
Ah yes however my opinion is based on what every one else has written (many times!) as I am neither a Republican nor Democrat!
DeleteI’ve reached this conclusion based on written information which you now tell me is wrong! As I said before for me it’s not about politics but clearly for Americans it is?
Penelope, you are correct that "it is about politics" in that a much higher percentage of Democrats favor stricter gun control measures than do Republicans. Other than that, however, the statistics get murky.
DeleteA 2019 poll by Pew Research, for example, showed that 50% of Democrats who owned guns actually wanted increased opportunities for concealed carry, rather than curtailing concealed carry, which is in line with Republican beliefs on that topic.
On the other hand, that same poll showed that nearly 90% of Democrats AND Republicans favored legislation that would prevent people with mental illnesses from buying guns, and both favored background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows. And yet, despite 90% agreement on both sides of the political divide, such legislation struggles to get out of various committees, much less to become law.
As with many things in America, there is the rhetoric that people - especially politicians - indulge in while people are watching, then there is the fact of what they actually say and do when no one is watching.
Guns can be adjusted so they will not shoot in certain locations. It is only a partial step forward, but can be applied to all guns made in the US or legally imported. After several years the rule can be that any gun without this is automatically destroyed.
ReplyDeleteCan this really happen in the US:
DeleteA number of years ago, some clever faculty in our School of Public Health calculated the number of children who would be saved from accidental self-inflicted kill shots if it was mandated that all guns had an automatic locking mechanism. Then one couldn’t pull the trigger by accident. The legislation never made it as far as a legislative committee in NC.
No kidding, Chip [George Pickett]? Can you elaborate?
DeleteInstall the core of your cellphone into the stock or handle of a gun.
DeleteWhen the gun finds itself in a GPS location that has been identified by local population, the phone goes into action.
Those actions can be:
-Setoff a loud sound that stays on and cannot be stopped. Make it so loud it can be heard at great distance.
-Have it force the insertion of a block into the guns mechanism so it cannot fire.
-Have the phone call 911, or a special local number alerting law enforcement that a gun is in the wrong location.
The advantage of this is that local jurisdictions can set their own rules. If a gun is closer than 1000 feet from a school it goes off. If the gun is in hunting area, or inside your house it can be used. Take it a block away and it sounds off. So Texans do not have to follow the practices of Los Angeles. Oregon can have different rules from Alaska.
The disadvantage is the obstacles to getting it implemented. It does not interfere with the second amendments rights to own. It just sets limits on where it can be used. “Use” is the term, not “ownership”.
Sounds hypothetical, not actual. Although there are systems that prevent a golf cart from driving in designated locations. So I guess this is feasible. How do you retrofit millions of guns?
DeleteThe first step is to require it of every newly manufactured gun here in the US.
DeleteAs to those already here — legal and illegal — I am not saying this is the universal solution. We also need the steps you all are familiar with. And, just as it took decades to get to this bad position on guns and their numbers, it is going to take decades to get out of it.
After a number of years I think the law should specify that any gun without this is destroyed by the police when taken. And that possession of a gun without it voids any license to carry.
I suspect the police and others could get behind this over time. Imagine going into a hostage situation and tell the local government to shutdown any gun within a hundred yards.
Sounds like a great idea but…$$$$?
DeleteGeorge, I admire the technology you propose, but if politicians were at all serious about controlling guns, wouldn't it be much easier to impose a modern version of the 'Federal Firearms Act of 1934' which was created to remove "gangster style" weapons from the streets?
DeleteThe main targets of the FFA were the "tommy gun" and readily concealable shotguns with sawed off barrels. For those of you unfamiliar with the "tommy gun" it was the street version of the machine gun created by John Thompson for military use, and it was the weapon of choice for 1920s gangsters. If the firepower of the modern "assault rifle" troubles you, the "tommy gun" should rightfully terrify you. If you have seen "gangster era" movies such as 'Bonnie & Clyde' you have seen the fully automatic firepower of the tommy gun on display; compared to that a modern semi-automatic assault weapon seems suitable for teenage scouts to use to earn their shooting skills merit badges.
As I recall the FFA put a hefty licensing fee on "gangster style" weapons which would be comparable to thousands of dollars per weapon today, and anyone caught carrying such a weapon without a permit automatically went to prison. The NRA actually supported the legislation, and almost immediately "gangster style" weapons were off the streets. Since there was no attempt to ban all such weapons, but to instead simply register and license them, there was no Second Amendment argument to be fought with radical guns' rights advocates.
Again, if politicians were at all serious, they could do the same thing today. Simply produce legislation that basically says people not convicted of felonies or under treatment for mental issues can possess whatever weapon they wish - as long as they can pay the related fees for a license to own such. Then it is simply a matter of setting the fees high enough to discourage ownership of guns in general, and certain classes of guns in particular. It isn’t much different than the concept the auto insurance industry – with the strong backing of the federal government - employs to discourage people from owning dangerously fast cars: make the insurance rates high enough, and most people quit buying them.
Nortin,
DeleteDo you have any idea why the proposed NC legislation never even made it as far as a committee? I used to live in NC and can readily envision conservative politicians doing all they can to kill any possible bill relating to gun control, but it happens all over the country. Polls show that 80-90% of Democrats AND Republicans want to close loopholes that allow gun buyers to avoid background checks, yet even that type of legislation struggles to find traction. Have you looked into the details of why that is?
I don’t know the answer to Paul’s question. Lisa Price is a leader in the “Anti-gun” lobby and might know. Lisa is Rep David Price’s wife.
DeleteIsn’t it always the same? Legislators and Governors are afraid that if they pass any gun legislation, gun owners will turn on them and they are afraid they will lose the financial support of the gun lobby.
DeleteSo at the end of the day any sane gun legislation requires the broad and active backing of gun owners like Paul and others in this group.
No?
Neil,
DeleteThe two most dangerous weapons most people ever handle are guns and vehicles. I've never understood why Americans get so worked up about 10,000 people/year being killed by irresponsible use of guns, but basically ignore nearly 40,000 people/year being killed by irresponsible use of vehicles.
I also don't understand the difference in approach to prosecution and resulting penalties. We recently had a case locally where a trailer truck driver, heading northbound on the interstate at 10mph over the speed limit, ran over a van from behind and killed two people: he was charged with reckless driving. Can you imagine what he would have been charged with if he had driven down the interstate and randomly shot two people?
Since vehicles kill four times as many people as guns, for years I have wondered what would happen if we linked guns rights and driving rights. Kill someone with a vehicle, you lose your right to drive, your right to a gun, and you pull the same prison sentence you would if you illegally killed someone with a gun. Act irresponsibly or illegally with a gun, and it likewise impacts your right to drive.
There is a precedent: starting in the 1980s, DUI boating deaths began to skyrocket. No one could figure out how to put teeth in a boating DUI law, until several states started linking boating DUI to vehicle driving records. After that, if someone went to their local lake and was caught boating under the influence, they were in the same trouble as if they had been caught DUI on the interstate. Within months, boating DUI cases plummeted.
Beating the anti-gun/pro-gun drum brings in so much money for both sides, it is hard to imagine either side actually taking steps to solve the problem. Consultant's creed: "If you have no intention of solving a problem, at least make really good money while prolonging it." If anyone really wanted to address the gun "problem" there are probably several angles of attack that steer far clear of the Second Amendment argument. Likewise, if anyone really wanted to reduce the number of deaths from irresponsible driving, there are plenty of ways to do that too.
I am going to be a bit harsh about this interesting piece of history.
DeleteIt is interesting.
But it also fits in the set inhabited by many people who think the only way to solve the problem is some master decision that suddenly and immediately makes guns disappear.
This is the crowd that can always find fault with any idea that does not eliminate guns. My idea, for example, was attacked by close friends because it would not affect the existing inventory. Other ideas have been attacked because they only affected large calibers. Others have been attacked as being impossible to implement politically.
And, they offer their solution as the better alternative.
Meanwhile, killing large numbers of people continue in schools, churches, and stores. And in small individual numbers in gunfights among gangs, bars, etc.
I believes the 2d Amendment has been badly applied. But dragging out history, as interesting as it is as history, is not much help.
The Supreme Court has just taken a case involving the limits under the Second Amendment on the ability of a state to regulate the right of a gun owner to carry a gun in public.
ReplyDeleteSteven, thank you for the reminder on that. It will be very interesting to see if the Supreme Court moves this country forward toward a realistic 21st century gun policy, or rolls the calendar back to the wild, wild west.
ReplyDeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteLet me tell you a story. In Uptown, one of Chicago's neighborhoods, a gang ran the streets near Senn high School. This is awhile back. Now Uptown is rich and glamorous, but back then--not at all. They decided to recruit Senn students and not give them a chance to say no. This is what happened on the second day of their endeavor: They accosted a young man fresh from the hills of Tennessee and he didn't blink an eye. Instead he said, "Look up on top of the buildings. That's my posse. Touch me and they start shooting." Young men armed with rifles stood up on the roofs and the gang on the ground not only backed down, but they disbanded.
OK, second story. During my life as an inner city teacher, an eighth grader came to me and told me he was scared to come to school because the gangs were after him. Strange as it may sound, I had just finished reading a very interesting article on gangs and I had just finished talking to the author, a very accessible individual working in the Department of Justice in Washington, DC I did what the article told be to do--and what he repeated to me on the phone: "Just tell them you'd very much like to join their gang; in fact, you admire them, but your mother won't allow it." Who knew? It worked perfectly. Every gang in the area knew who he was within a few days and each gang had a hands-off policy towards him. And it worked over and over and over. Seemed like the gangbangers respected someone who cared about their mother so much, they would follow her even when their life might be endangered.
Paul, unfortunately, in some Chicago neighborhoods, the residents are too scared and too poor to go anywhere else, the police at best are ineffective (you can only bully people for so long before they'd rather not have you around), and too often everything that can go wrong does.
ReplyDeleteWhen Chicago tried putting officers on the street whiteout police cars, they were able to get a lot done, became friends with an number of people and things were getting better--but things changed when funding was cut, these officers were moved to other precincts, etc.
Under Jimmy Carter I was lucky to run a program to assist the poorest of the poor in some of Chicago's most dangerous housing projects. Under Ronald Reagan, my program was cut within weeks of his presidency.
Lack of infrastructure, lack of jobs, poverty, poor education and poor role models and extremely poor mentors add to the confusion. You do what you can.
I am still a firm believer in words and stopping conflict with peaceful means. Example: Big fight on the street. The boy who was bigger than me and stronger was ready to body slam another kid, not as big and definitely not as strong. What did I do? I tickled the boy and wouldn't stop until he put the other kid down safely. You don't always get that lucky, but other methods are effective too.
ReplyDelete