|
March 27, 2007
"slaughter" committed by "high caliber" "automatics"
Yet another inaccurate and misleading front page Inquirer story attempting to vilify guns instead of the criminals who misuse them. And yet another meaningless series of corrections by a mean-spirited gun nut whose corrections would only matter to other mean-spirited gun nuts (and possibly a few kooks who dare worry about inaccuracy or bias in the media while people are dying): In a city plagued by epidemic violence, certain slayings always stand out: the grandmother killed in a parked car by Wild West-style gunfire; the parent senselessly gunned down while minding her kids on the street.The slaughter of innocents? Is this reporting or editorializing? If this woman had nothing to do with any of the shooters and was in fact caught in crossfire, that would be murder, but isn't it a bit argumentative to call it a "slaughter"? According to an earlier report, one of the shooters was her nephew, and the confrontation "had begun the night before and reignited about 4:30 p.m.": A 17-year-old youth was shot in the arm, and a 19-year-old man was shot in the leg. They were taken to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Stelly's relatives said the 17-year-old was her nephew.Another article said the shooting involved a family feud: The gun battle between two feuding families took the life of 28-year-old Jovanne Stelly.Today's front page article is the only one which supplies any detail about the firearms used. We are told there were "at least four people using high-caliber automatic pistols." First of all, I doubt they were using automatic pistols. While such things do exist, they are not legal to buy or possess without a special license. Ordinary street criminals would tend not to have them, because they're so rare that they'd cost a small fortune. But what about the phrase "high caliber"? As Dave Kopel points out elsewhere, the phrase is often misused. As this site explains, it's a non-descriptive term: The high-caliber rifle is an invention by the news media. Bullets are propelled by a chemical explosion that can be of high-power or low-power.There's a longstanding debate among firearms enthusiasts over weapon caliber, and the .44 or .45 is considered to have considerably more stopping power than, say, a 9mm. However, the proper term would be "large caliber," because caliber is a measurement of bullet diameter. "High" is used to describe power or velocity, and involves the overall cartridge (not bullet) size, and how much gunpowder is inside it. Thus, an AR-15 firing a .223 would be properly called a small caliber, high power weapon. If we assume (as I think we must) that the guns used in the latest shooting were semi-automatic handguns, then they would not be high-velocity, so, giving the writer the benefit of the doubt, it is fair to assume than when he says "high caliber," he means "large caliber." The problem with that is there's no indication in today's story that large caliber bullets were used. Instead, there's this reference to a 9mm (which happens to be the most commonly available handgun): Hearing shots fired around 4:30 p.m., Stelly rushed to the street to retrieve two of her children when a bullet crashed through her skull. Two teens, including Stelly's 17-year-old nephew Kendall Sterns, were wounded in the fusillade of as many as 40 rounds unleashed in minutes, police said yesterday.While it's probably as easy to walk around with a 9mm as with a .22 or a .44, his use of the term (and the ubiquity of the round) makes me think that in all probability, the weapons involved in the shooting were standard, garden-variety 9mm. Not high power, and not large caliber. I can only conclude that the writer used the term "high caliber" in the same way he used the word "slaughter" -- as rhetorical hyperbole. I am, however, fascinated by the statement that "when Rizzo was in, there was fear that kept us straight," because I remember Frank Rizzo quite well. He epitomized law and order, was much feared by criminals, and the left absolutely hated him. I think he'd probably be elected overwhelmingly were he alive today, because he'd promise to clean up the crime, and based on his track record, people would believe him. I doubt he'd focus on guns as the cause, as this administration is doing. And if he did, he'd know the difference between large and small caliber weapons, and probably between automatic and semi-automatic. The article continues: Johnson said an officer was about a half-block away when Sunday's gunfire erupted and arrived at Pentridge Street about the time the first call to 911 came in. He said shootings and violent crime were down compared with last year, even though the number of homicides is up.Increased use of automatic weapons? Is that really what he means? Is that what he even said? I don't know, but again, he would be talking about semi-automatic weapons. They can "fire more bullets and faster" than revolvers, but the technology is a century old, and whether their use is on the increase or not, the fact that "as many as 40 rounds" were "unleashed in minutes" is not remarkable considering that there were four shooters. Even if they'd all been using 6-shot revolvers, they'd have had plenty of time to reload. In another article, the homicide sergeant was quoted as saying that we know that five guns were used in the shootout but no guns were recovered." (Any five functional handguns could easily discharge 40 rounds in a period of minutes.) There's no question that this death was tragic, but what I want to know is why there has been no discussion of the shooters. Were any arrests made? Why not? Considering all the discussion, speculation, and outright mischaracterization of firearms, and the use of the word "slaughter," why is it that nowhere (in any of the articles I've seen) do the words "suspect" or "arrest" occur? And why is it that no reward has been offered? You'd almost think the guns were the only suspects. Or is there some rule of which I'm unaware that murders committed in the course of family feuds are the fault of the guns? Were the Hatfields and the McCoys an argument for gun control? Who knew? posted by Eric on 03.27.07 at 09:15 AM |
|
April 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2007
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
"Just say know"
"Speech code" for the blogosphere? Tell me they're just kidding! The statistics behind the "gun violence" Don't be clowning with Iran Protecting adults from invasions The topological abduction of my unfinished post! ("The Shape of things to come?") Dali Lama Threatened By Osama Strategy , Grand Strategy, and Tactics Happy Easter! How criticizing Clinton's sexism becomes "harassment"
Links
Site Credits
|
|
In Los Angeles shootings used to be gangs of one particular ethnic group (Blacks, Latinos) struggling within that group for dominance. Bloods vs. Crips, that sort of thing. To control drugs, prostitution, protection rackets.
Now in LA the shootings are part of ethnic cleansing, the limitless manpower of Latino gangs (always new hard boy gunmen from Mexico or Central America) pushing out the limited manpower of Black gangs (only so many black young men in LA).
Strategically, Black Gangsters made a huge mistake. They pushed for Mayor Tony Villaraigosa, a longtime La Raza supporter AND for a restrictive Police Commission to essentially conduct Kangaroo Courts for any police shootings of Black Gangsters. The case of 13 year old Devin Brown, out at 3 AM with a stolen car trying to run over a policeman who then shot him, is instructive. The Police Board of Review cleared the officer but the Police Commission made up of Black Civil Rights and ex-Gang member "community activists" plus the usual white liberal lawyers charged the officer with murder. Result?
"Drive and wave." Police officers know any confrontation with a gangster can quickly escalate to force or deadly force and they will be hung out to dry. So they simply drive and wave.
The net result is a free-fire zone in LA with the Latino gangs able to outshoot by superior numbers the Black gang soldiers. And IMHO deliberate targeting of innocent victims (schoolgirls, elderly women, etc) by Latino gang members.
COULD the same thing be happening in the City of Brotherly Love? I've heard that Latino presence in the city is rapidly increasing. Perhaps an ethnic struggle by Latinos to push Blacks out by killings of innocents? After all such a strategy is cost-free. No comeback given the civil rights emphasis, PC racial attitudes, etc.
The campaign against "guns" is easy because it avoids the political difficulties. Which is the freedom of action given to the gangsters by handcuffing the police, and responding to any and every civil rights activist who stirs up trouble.
Organizationally IMHO the Philly PD won't take action unless it's officers are convinced they won't be hung out to dry, which takes raw political courage by the entire city admin (since the Mayor or whoever can sabotage any such stand).
I think Philly is just going to have to accept these deaths until one gang completely wins.