Thursday, January 21, 2016

Abbotsford hip hop artist speaks out about gang violence



The Abby News is reporting that a local hip hop artist has spoken up against gang violence after a 74 year old man was killed from a stray bullet in a local gang shooting.

8 comments:

  1. For all the people ever speaking out about gang violence, I've never seen it do any good. Much easier than actually getting rid of gangbangers though. And I do mean "get rid of".....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the thought that counts. Changing public acceptance is the first step.

      Delete
  2. Gang violence continues in our society, because it is a condition we or some of "we" continue to permit to exist.
    When I say, a condition we continue to permit to exist, it is that we do not see families and/or friends "turn" in "gangsters who commit violence". You know, they're family. We don't see religious leaders up and speaking out on the subject on a regular basis nor do we see politicians speaking out on it on a regular basis. We see them paying lip service when there is an outcry, but then its back to whatever else would get them more votes. We have police forces in the B.C. who don't do enough of a job dealing with any of it. We have police forces who are not afforded sufficient resources to deal with it. WE don't put enough money into children to assist them in not joining the gang life. When kids start to drift in that direction and they come from Middle class families, no one wants to deal with it. They just turn a blind eye.

    This morning's news reported on a woman who pled guilty to placing logs on trails which would have injured mountain bikers. Two mountain bikers took it upon themselves to install cameras and monitor all of it. In fact they put the case together. Now how many people would do something like that to get rid of "gangsters" even if it did not put them in harms way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. It's pretty easy to find out who is selling crack outside the Front Room in Surrey or outside the Carnegie Centre in the DTES. Instead of doing that, arresting a 64 year old woman for screwing with mountain bikers makes the news. Pretty pathetic.

      Delete
  3. I think a 64 year old woman is a different opponent than younger aggressive gangsters/drug dealers who have firearms....and you could film all the drug dealing you want and there would be little done about it by the police, especially in Surrey.

    Don't kid yourself, the police are totally capable of doing this stuff, IF they want to, and IF the younger, hungrier cops would be supported by their superiors, and IF judges wouldn't waste all the time and effort (good surveillance work is VERY time/manpower intensive) by giving people slaps on the wrist. Comparing the sentences for large amounts of coke/meth/heroin Canada vs. USA should give you an idea.

    Mind you I am in favour of legalizing it all and letting Darwin sort things out anyway, I'm tired of the "War on Drugs" which is never won.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah legalizing all of it would be complete irresponsibility. As you say the cops are indeed perfectly capable of doing something about it right now if they so choose. Letting it continue is shameful as would be legalizing all of it and thereby pouring gasoline on the forest fire.

      Delete
  4. I agree that things might get ugly in the short term. As unattractive a prospect as that is, it's pretty much the only thing we haven't tried. What we have been doing doesn't seem to be working. When you're in that position, the only thing left is to be tried what you haven't. As I say, I don't disagree that there could be some human tragedy involved, but we have that already. At the very least it would pull the involvement of the criminal element out of it when there is no money to be made. Employers still get to require drug tests as a condition of gaining and maintaining employment. Public service, heavy machinery, etc.. I maintain that most people will not all of a sudden go out and try drugs just because they are legal, "because Darwinism".

    The forest fire analogy is interesting. We often set fires, referred to as backburns, to control a larger fire that threatens to get out of control. As well we know that forest fires are not always bad, indeed they will burn off accumulated undergrowth and dead wood ;-) allowing the forest to grow anew. Indeed nature itself often starts these fires.

    The human need to control is at the root of many of our ill's, "other people" being the most compulsive. All the great slaughters of the 20th century stemmed from that urge. Prohibition in the 20's likewise, it not only failed but brought us the beginnings of modern organized crime. To let go of that urge is the most difficult thing a human being can do. There is a time and a place for it, say, raising children. But attempting to regulate and criminalize adult behavior that harms no one but themselves is foolish and counterproductive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bullsh*t it's the only thing we haven't tried. Enforcement is what we haven't tried. The New York model is what we haven't tried. Are you high? Do we give up on the war on murder or theft and legalize that too? That is the wrong direction.

      Delete