I seem to have adopted Phil's penchant for naming blog posts after movies. In this case it seems especially appropriate. If you tuned in to 91FM today, you may have heard Elizabeth Fiedler's very interesting take on the current violent crime epidemic. She sought out a couple of experts who have studied or dealt directly with crime in Philadelphia for at least a couple generations to find out how this wave of violence differs from the high point of gang warfare in the 60s and 70s. Guess what the answer is? You got it... more guns.
Back in the day, it turns out, gang members had to rely on their fists, their fighting ability and whatever blunt object they could turn into a weapon. The violence was more calculated, less random and less likely to take out an innocent bystander. Though a lot of people were killed, it appears a good beatdown was the ultimate objective. The piece doesn't explain why it's easier to get a gun these days, whether it's laws that are more lax or guns being produced faster and cheaper.
Regardless, more guns means that more lazy punks who know that they'd get their butts kicked in a fair, mano-a-mano, fight can pick up a gun rather than hit the weights and settle thing in seconds. Me? I've never thrown a real punch at someone in my life and I'm hoping I never have to. If I did get in a fight, I admit it, I'd probably get pretty bloodied but without a gun in the picture, I'd live to fight (or not fight) another day.
It's like Craig's father said in Friday:
You win some, you lose some. But you live, you live to fight another day.
Check out the piece, especially the story from Bilal Qayyum about what it was like back in the day.