Wednesday, December 10, 2008

My Two Cents

It’s been a while since I’ve riffed of another blogger’s post, but I really wanted to have my say on Evanesce’s latest.

Mr. Evan wrote about a recent Associated Press article that says that more people are getting away with murder.

Of course, the article is just another example of typical mainstream journalism. It follows the usual formula: Here’s something new to be afraid of, here’s why it’s so terrible, here’s why it’s going to affect you personally, and here’s why you can’t do a damn thing about it.

The article, in simplest terms, was all about how more people are getting away with murder…which of course means every person you see in the street is a potential murderer.

Our friend Evan is sensibly skeptical about the whole thing and says that the article is (shock, horror!) sloppily written and the conclusions drawn don’t necessarily reflect the raw data. As Evan points out, more unsolved murders doesn’t necessarily mean more people are getting away with murder. I’ll quote him directly here:

“This doesn't truly say that more people are getting away with murder, because it's equally possible -- and equally likely --that we have the same number of killers, who are harvesting more victims.”

After reading through the article myself, I noticed the proposed reason for more people getting away with murder:

“Law enforcement officials say the chief reason is a rise in drug- and gang-related killings, which are often impersonal and anonymous, and thus harder to solve than slayings among family members or friends. As a result, police departments are carrying an ever-growing number of "cold-case" murders on their books…Many slayings nowadays are gang- and drug-related killings — often, drive-by shootings that involve a burst of gunfire so indiscriminate that killer and victim don't know each other.”

This led me to another conclusion.

That conclusion is: Who cares?

What they’re saying is that gang members are shooting each other competing over territory they use to deal drugs.

You know what I call that? I call that a self-solving problem. Don’t bother spending taxpayer money tracking them down and locking them up…just let them kill each other off.

When one gang does a drive-by shooting on another, to me that just means a few less gang members selling drugs on our streets. I also don’t care if the shooters get caught by the police, because chances are they’ll end up dead when the gang they shot at decides to get some revenge.

Basically, according to all available data, you only have a higher chance of getting killed (and your killer getting away with it) if you’re a gang member or drug dealer.

…and if you are a gang member or drug dealer, that’s your own fault and I honestly don’t give a shit if you get killed or not.

1 comment:

Evanesce In 2008 said...

The only problem with your recommendation is that you're going with the assumption that no innocent victims will be caught in the crossfire of gang-related violence. Unfortunately, innocent victims die more frequently than the target of the drive-bys. To paraphrase something I heard a long time ago, the safest place to be in a drive-by shooting, is the target they're aiming for.

Most of these guys can't hit the broad side of a barn.