Tuesday, May 10, 2011

The Safer Streets Newsletter and Commentary

You don't fight crime by chasing it, you fight crime by facing it. [More]
John Longenecker has a new edition.
Posted by David Codrea at 5/10/2011 09:21:00 PM

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

at the Protein Wisdom blog, the
commenter "Squid" held forth
as follows"
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=26794

28. Squid posted on 4/13 @ 12:59 pm

Maybe it's just me, but I'm starting to see all this "eat the
rich" agitprop less in terms of making it okay to steal their ****
through the tax code, and more in terms of making it okay to steal
their **** after the bottom drops out.

This isn't about preparing a policy debate; it's about setting up a scapegoat.

Better believe it. And what could
prevent such depredations?

All the best, cycjec

5/11/2011 11:03 PM
Anonymous said...

Francis Porretto, 2005 at Eternity
Road in his "Fear of Equalizers,
identified one attitude, one can't
call it a line of thought that leads too many who identify as "conservative" to accede to infringements of the RKBA.


Porretto:

The politically engaged tend to be among America's better off. Conservatives in particular often feel they have a lot to defend. In the main, they've worked hard for what they have, and justifiably feel that they deserve it and deserve to keep it. If our typical conservative, Smith, senses some sort of threat to his position and holdings, from where would it emanate, and what form would it take?

Most violence and crime against property takes place in a relatively small sector of the country: the heavily populated urban areas and their nearest, densest suburbs. Smith is highly unlikely to live in such a locale, preferring the greater safety and gentility of the outer suburbs or rural America. Therefore, he's unlikely to be too often aware of his vulnerability to personal attack. Nor will he think of his home as a probable target for plunderers.

However, Smith hears the stories, as do we all. He hears about the plagues of gunfire and gang warfare on the evening news; he simply can't get away from them and remain reasonably well informed. So the "threat" posed by firearms, which the Old Media have promoted ceaselessly since 1965, will appear linked to forces which, were they to impinge upon his life, would have the aspect of an invading army, albeit one that wears no uniforms and flies no banners.

Given this sense of a potential but distant threat, Smith would prefer to see it kept at bay by "professionals": the police and armed forces. Economically, it makes more sense to him; a citizen militia would cut too deeply into his time and the walk-in trade at his place of business. Besides, defending the borders is what government is for, isn't it?

Another economic vantage arises from the comparative theory of wealth: that Smith regards himself as wealthy only because he has more than most others. If those others are poised at his gates, and might just be contemplating the redistribution of his wealth, he'd rather wrap himself around his property than take up arms to repel them. It will be infinitely easier for "the authorities" to protect him and his if no one else is permitted a firearm; it will make their targets easier to spot.


These are natural reactions to the asymmetric state of affairs that prevails in American society at this time. In a way, they're the class-warfare angle to the right to keep and bear arms, which its proponents would prefer to see as class-independent. In truth, the whole country would benefit were we to go back to being a gun-toting people. Widespread availability of firearms under the widest conceivable array of circumstances would put ordinary citizens on an equal plane with the predators that prowl among us. Beyond that, it would put us at each other's disposal; citizens are far more likely to come to one another's aid when they're armed. Finally, the heightened prospects for any insurrection that might arise would have a sobering effect on our political class. It's just hard to see that picture when one is consumed by the more lurid fears described above.

end of quote

This desire to "have someone else"
do it must be behind the incoherence of several recent jury
verdicts-- look up the death of Niles Meservey.

They don't think the shooting was
tolerable but are unwilling to fully penalize the killer cop.

At one time, this incoherent polarity was tolerable, but I
think it is no more.

all the best, cycjec

5/11/2011 11:12 PM
Anonymous said...

It might be necessary to make it
perfectly explicit that the "protectors" can and might turn predator, in circumstances I hope are entirely too conceivable by every reader here.
all the best, cycjec

5/11/2011 11:14 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)