22 equals 21 equals 20 in nine or eleven days or something like that.

While I'm still on the subject of the Inky, here's something else I missed:

Last year there were only 11 days when no one was shot in Philadelphia.

On average, more than four people a day were struck by bullets. About one in six died. On one day alone - Oct. 22 - 19 people were shot, one fatally.

It's a toll of injury and death that falls most heavily on the same few neighborhoods year after year: North Philadelphia. West Philadelphia north of Market Street. The southwestern edge of South Philadelphia.

Police know it. City Hall knows it. The residents of those neighborhoods certainly know it.

Those same neighborhoods were well-represented again in the last two weeks, as the city experienced another breathtaking spree of violence that saw 22 people killed by guns in 11 days. Among them was 9-year-old Wander DeJesus, who died while sitting in a van.

Others died after arguments over drugs, women, and even a stolen cell phone. Some were victims of robberies. Half were carrying firearms. Nine of the 22 were young African American men.

I don't mean to pick nits, and I realize that anyone can make mistakes. But on March 16, I saw this report:

22 Killings in Nine Days

Since March 7, 21 people have been killed in Philadelphia. All but two died from gunfire. Three were children.

The above accompanied a report on Mayor Street's plea to Governor Rendell. Here's the text of an article appearing the next day:

Mayor Street is seeking a moratorium on gun permits after a run of violence that has left 77 people dead in the city since the beginning of the year - including 22 over nine days. But Pennsylvania law requires Philadelphia to get state authorization before limiting the sale of guns.

Now I'm told there were "22 people killed by guns in eleven days."

What am I supposed to believe?

Just yesterday, another chart prepared by the Inquirer (accompanying this article) appeared in the paper but not online. So once again, my scanner was busy:

Notice the ominous figure of 50% of the victims being "under 25." I don't know why they chose "under 25", but it's misleading as hell, and I suspect it has something to do with making the facts fit the ongoing meme that "children" are being slaughtered by "guns." Let's take another look at the first scan to see how the numbers stack up against the pie graph in the second scan.

11 out of -- what's the number? -- 20, 21, 22?

Let's just for the sake of argument make it 11 out of 20. That's slightly better than 50%. But how many were children?

One.

Considering that they're devoting half the pie to the demographic group that includes children, it's more than a little disingenuous.

Imagine what would happen if bloggers had access to all the police data! How many of the "victims" of these "tragedies" were carrying illegal weapons themselves? How many were career criminals? The Inquirer won't say, because they want to drum up public sympathy, and the more innocent they can make the "victims" appear, the better.

Here's some evidence (in a local blog) that not everyone believes in the innocence of all the victims:

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Drugs likely behind killing of Manayunk man, police say

By Thomas J. Gibbons Jr.

Inquirer Staff Writer

Police suspect drugs were the motive in a shooting yesterday that killed a Manayunk man outside his apartment and wounded a 32-year-old woman who was with him.

Homicide detectives said Sangho Lee, 37, of the 200 block of Cotton Street, was shot once in the stomach about 1:15 a.m. Lee had just descended a flight of steps and was heading for his auto, parked in the street, when he was cut down by gunfire from a passing car.

The woman was still on the steps when she was shot, detectives said.

Lee was pronounced dead less than 45 minutes later at Temple University Hospital.

The woman, whose name was not released because of her witness status, was taken to the same hospital, where she was treated for a minor back wound. She was later brought to police headquarters to be interviewed.

Police were looking for a 1995 to 1999 Nissan Maxima in connection with the shooting. The auto may have been occupied by two men.

***
pug Tastykake Maker

Joined: 05 Mar 2004
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:31 am Post subject: Reply with quote

One down and more many to go.

And even if I would be a victim in the legal sense, would I be the moral equivalent of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq?

Noting that more people were slain in Philadelphia than U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq over the weekend, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sylvester M. Johnson, District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham, and representatives from the police Homicide Division today denounced the carnage.

"In one week in the city of Philadelphia, we had 42 shootings and 18 homicides. When we have these homicides and these shootings we need people to come forward and assist us," Johnson said.

From Friday to Sunday, gunfire and stabbings left 11 people dead in the city. Two U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq over the same period.

But is the recital of that mere possibility persuasive? Here's what the police are willing to say (and the Inquirer is willing to print):

Police said there have been 71 homicides this year, 9.23 percent more than the 65 recorded last year at this time. Of the homicides this year, 55 were committed by handguns and two by shotguns.

Arguments, police said, resulted in 29 of the homicides. Three were caused by domestic violence, seven were caused by drugs, one was caused by sexual violence, one was caused by child abuse, nine were caused by street robberies, and two were caused by home robberies. No motives have been determined for 19 of the homicides, police said.

But first, what does "caused by" mean? If a burglar invaded my home in the middle of the night and I shot him, would his death be counted in this "shooting epidemic?" Why?

As to "arguments" as a "cause", that's 29 of the 71 killings. What were these arguments about? Yesterday's Inquirer provided only the barest clue:

Others died after arguments over drugs, women, and even a stolen cell phone. Some were victims of robberies. Half were carrying firearms. Nine of the 22 were young African American men.

Couple enough elastic statistics with the even more elastic idea that the deaths were caused by "arguments," and reasonable analysis is rendered all but impossible. The word "argument" is, I think, deliberately misused, and in a circular manner. To say that an argument "caused" a murder is at least as frivolous as saying that a gun caused it. Do we say that domestic violence is caused by "arguments"? Would we say that a rape was caused by an argument over sex? Or that the deaths in Cambodia's killing fields were caused by Pol Pot's arguments with the bourgeoise? If so, wouldn't the Holocaust also have been "caused" by Hitler's "argument" with the Jews?

I don't mean to trivialize any of this; in fact, my argument is against trivialization. If some maniac jumped into my car and shot me because I refused to drive him somewhere, I'd hate to have it said that my death was "caused by" an "argument."

To do so would be cruel and misleading in the extreme. I suspect the idea is to make the shooters and the victims the moral equivalent of each other. No one is right, and no one is wrong (except the guns).

The whole thing is horrendous beyond math.

And beyond words.

AFTERTHOUGHT: What about those who think that "arguments plus guns equals murder"? Would they even trust themselves to own guns?