The myth of Gang violence

hucksplat

hucksplat

Member
As many of you have been seeing recently, allegedly there has been a rash of gang violence in Vancouver and across Canada. The Tory government is set to deliver new legislation with harsher punishment and enhanced policing powers. However, the contention that 'gang violence' is on the rise is a deliberately construed misconception designed to enhance policing powers and drawn sensationalist media attention.

The fact is, violent crime in Canada is falling. Stats Can shows the rate of violent crimes decreasing across the board (except level 2&3 assault) with the homicide rate dropping 14% over the last decade. Overall, violent crimes decreased 5% over the last decade.

'Gangs' is merely a sensationalist word rich in violent connotations that is being used to prejudice public sentiment into false action. Criminal associations are nothing new and social groupings is a commonality of criminals and honest people. 'Gangs' is being used to sells newspapers and increase RCMP funding.

While reducing crime is generally a worthwhile objective, I find it distasteful when sensationalism is used as a tool by the media and police with their own self-interests in mind.

ps - so how about those tasers eh? still feel safe from the cops? the fuck up count is rising
 
The "self-interest" of the Police and RCMP in the case of increased funding and resources is usually in the self-interest of the public as well. While I do agree that the sensationalism can be a bit much at times, 6 fucking people killed at the same time is a pretty big deal. And a big problem. While violent crime is dropping across Canada, and statistically it may be dropping in BC and even around Vancouver, it's still a problem. I'm all for the harsher penalties the tories are proposing, there are waaay too many lax punishments being handed out in this country.

Also, regarding the tasers. How about you don't be a sketchbag yelling and throwing chairs and computers around at midnight in an international airport? Or take a run at a cop with something that can be used as a weapon? Sometimes cops have to use their weapons, would it be better to pull a gun and shoot some guy in the leg? Maybe, but I'm not sure that's always possible, life isn't the same as the movies.
 
My bad, I was ranting and I just find it really distasteful of how 'gangs' is the new keyword. Criminals have been making associations forever, labeling them all gangs is the new fad. There is organized crime, and then there is small-time criminals who come in packs and do stupid things. All who are now auspiciously called gangs.

I just read the BC page of the Globe and saw the word 'gang' a dozen too many times and went on a wind. I do agree the brazeness of murders is quite a dilemma needing more policing.
 
I agree with your point. Really, "gangsters" shoot each other anyways, they aren't after your father, mother or sister. Stray bullets are the most dangerous technicality of the thing when public shootings take place. If innocents are killed (which hasn't really happened yet, to some extent) then there is a real problem.
 
the fucking Sun, I think, or it could have been the tabloid that is called the Province...anyways, did that week long thing on gangs and 'thugs'. it was brutal, it made the entire city out to be a war zone with trafficking and drive-bys everywhere. total media manipulation of the incidents.

and yeah...tasers. i can understand tasering someone. they didnt mean to kill him, its not like that dude who got shot 9 times. sometimes i feel bad for the amount of hate thrown at cops for shooting someone when in the same situation who would have unloaded your whole magazine into him. other times i just wanna sing fuck the pooooolice.
 
AND on top of it all, all the ads for that week long thing had some homeless-looking ass dude crouching by a wall with a can of spraypaint in his hand....

reallly...that's not the kind of individual who is involved in GANG VIOLENCE. why didn't they put a picture of some fucking asian with blond hair and silver chains, dressed in all white? or some gino-ed out brown dude? ugh, it's frustrating that they paint such an incorrect picture of "gang members."

really though, i don't know what they can really do about it. as long as vancouver is a port city, there will always be an influx of drugs and so there will always be someone to sell those drugs (along with lots of weapons to protect those who are selling them). plus, these "gangsters" are this way by choice. this isn't south central where they grow up in poverty and one of their only ways to earn a decent wage is to hustle hustle real hard. they come from fairly well-to-do families and they get involved in this garbage because of the way gangsterism is portrayed.

i just recently found some some homies i went to school with are dealing CRACK. in OTTAWA. and i'm telling you, it's all because they can't distinguish real life in the ghetto from real life in suburbia. none of these kids had it hard...some of their parents did, but they did everything they could to ensure that their children would have a good life. it's the same with all these SA's and brown kids and whoever else...

drug dealing is a very lucrative business and who doesn't love money, right? even if they come from a well off family, they want to make their keep...and often they want to make it the east way. it's a hard problem to solve because you can't just establish community programs and build better schools and do whatever else to get these guys from hustling, they already have the luxuries that clearly distinguish them from some po' kid selling crack to his momma. i don't know what i'm saying anymore, i'm just riled up because i'm just shocked at how crazy the gang/drug/violence/whatever scene is out here and i honestly can't think of a single thing cops could do about it.
 
I don't really care what they label violent offenders, or if they operate in a group or individually. If harsher penalties are on their way I'm happy with that, because I don't think there can be any doubt that ours are extremely lax (largely thanks to the BCCA)
 
For violent crimes I agree we are excessively lax and forgiving, to the point of harming victims rights. The systems needs to be harsher on serious crimes and repetitive petty criminals with dozens of convictions and etc. But please continue to be lenient on marijuana. And if they really wanted to harm organized crime finances, legalize marijuana production and transfer these profits to legitimate citizens and society instead of ostracizing otherwise law abiding persons with liberal attitudes to weed.
 
I'm with you on marijuana, and I say that as a non-smoker. It is a basically harmless vice, less harmful than alcohol (which one discovers very quickly working at a bar and watching people drain 7 beers and try to drive home in the rain). As far as i'm concerned, fuck the Lions, turn BC place into a government-sponsored grow op and make pot a major export. If the U.S. government wants to threaten a response they can suck our dick, BC hydro powers half the western states.
 
(I wasn't entirely serious on the BC place idea. I'm sure there are better places for a massive government grow-op.)
 
If you don't like sensationalism be glad you aren't sujected SOLELY to American media.

On the covereage of the wildfires in California the news outlets at one point or another blamed, the war in Iraq, and Al-Queda for the fires.

(Jon Stewart gets the cred on that one)
 
Hey, I got threatened by some dude yesterday who was going to go get his people 'cause I wouldn't let him drive drunk away from the bar. Do you think he might have been a gangster? PS about the myth, if I'm murdered I hope the papers attribute my death to a gang of unicorns.
 
I talked to someone who used to work in a drug analysis lab the other day. She definitely confirmed that other than the biker gangs, the people at the head of the drugs trade who control it all live in the British Properties rather than Surrey central.
 
do you know where the ACTUAL government grow op is for medicinal purposes?

in a fucking cave in manitoba. how ridiculous is that? further, they have constraints on the THC content and most medicinal users consider it to be junk and purchase off their neighborhood dealer anyways.

decriminalization is crap. if you are going to admit that marijuana consumption is socially and morally acceptable (which it should be) then it would be hypocritical to not embrace their entire supply chain as well. legalization is the only socially beneficial logical end result though i accept that we may have to get there iteratively
 
i dont think that gangs are a very big problem in vancouver. i have noticed a lot more homeless and addicts on the north shore though, i was encountered by a woman on a meth trip on lonsdale at 3 in the afternoon just last week.
 
"gang violence" as in "HA" is so rampant and blatant in Vancouver I really don't care if the governments deemed "acts of sensationalism" is what it takes. Criminal activity bothers me. I've been in bar none twice when HA have come in and done their thing. Fighting and making me feel unsafe enough to leave. Where I work, just last night, we had a large christmas party that we were warned as "associated with organized crime" in the city. The police gang task force came in to basically let the group know that they know where they are and what they are doing so nothing shady went down when all those twats were hammered.

Additionally, there is some prime real estate that is owned by organized crime that I would much rather see go to some commercial or residential development than housing the hookers of seymour street and any crack and heroin addict. If it's a means to an end, it's certainly less invasive to my personal safety and well being than some of the acts of violence I see now and again around town.
 
I definitely disagree with that. Prime real estate? Yeah, in Shaughnessy like that guy who was murdered a couple weeks ago and was involved way up in some asian gang. Hookers and addicts are in motel rooms they are renting out, and being evicted on a regular basis. I don't think having those people homeless on the street will be less invasive to your safety. Look at what they're doing to the Woodward building, I find it ridiculous to create middle and upper class housing in an area like that, and fence it off and surround it with security guards like it was Alcatraz.
 
So are you saying that you think it's less acceptable to put a building up in an area where there are non-tax paying, non-contributing members of society that are sucking off the governmental tit just because they want to get high than to fill said building with tax-paying, labour contributing purchasers?

Example of prime real estate downtown - Seymour and Nelson...where the penthouse is, have you noticed the crack houses directly adjacent to that land. Do you know who owns that? I do...it's not legitmate business paying the tax on that slum which is likely appraising at current downtown explosive lot values right now from the rent that's for sure.

Also, funny enough that you bring up the Woodward building. In my opinion that is the first time something has come into eastern downtown which could actually help a group of people. Remember, only so many of them actually want to be "helped". Clearly, for the past 15 years, legal injection sites are not working. Those people don't look healthy or happy to me. Additionally, moving some of the people that are simply not able to change out of that area opens up a lot of room to revitalize a sincerely historical area of our city to it's original glamour. I for one can't wait to see Gastown cleaned up, it's my favourite area of the city.
 
My original lamentation was regarding the sensationalism of the media when crimes rates are decreasing, but I suppose that is just what reporters are paid to do. I do think it is a problem as it distracts resources from better uses and increases policing which i regard as ineffective and disreputable.

As for gastown, I am actually all for gentrification. That area IS prime real estate and NEEDS to be developed. However, I am opposed to social housing and believe it has the negative effect of centralizing social malaises. I prefer economic subsidies through tax breaks and living allowances for qualified individuals which I think gives them greater choice in where to live, geographically disperses them so they don't concentrate, and minimally disrupts the free market model.

One contention I have is the denigration of the poor. While we are quick to judge them for the squalor, it is often the product of poor social upbringing or biological illness. While anyone can rise above the depravity, it is a odious demand and most fall through the cracks. Is it fair that we condemn them to a perpetuity of malfeasance? I believe we have an obligation to help that and I believe that safe injection sites do work for some. There will always be a homeless and criminal rate like there is an unemployment rate, but we are not to abstain from seeking to help them improve their lives. But I think they have no right to claiming some of the best real estate around and I am all for dispersing them away from downtown. Get rid of the slums, help them find housing and jobs elsewhere, develop the downtown east side.

Frankly, organized crime is such a problem because of our self-defeating crime policies our lack of belief pluralism. I have yet to see a situation where substance prohibition has worked. Prohibition keeps the problem underground and allows the effects to compound beyond the control of government. I truly believe the best and most effective method of dealing with them is legalization and government regulation. It removes the power away from organized criminals and produces many more socially and economically beneficial outcomes. If we live in a pluralistic society where we respect others beliefs, then should the non-harmful behavior of consenting adults be criminalized? It can be argued that it will lead to the apathy of the middle class, but when compared against the prohibitive regiment and resultant magnified problems, which option is better? I believe legalization is the way to go. I understand the counter argument and see that it may work, but I feel it contradicts our democratic beliefs and is socially inferior.

And on a last note, we are not so above the homeless ourselves. I would argue that the rates of white collar crime are much higher than most believe and that white collar crime has a much larger impact than homeless/poverty crimes. People who cheat their taxes, embezzlement, under the table work, office theft; these crimes are more prevalent than poverty crimes yet receive much less attention because they are less opaque. Yet the net social impact is likely greater than that from the 10,000 or so homeless people in Vancouver. We condemn the poor for being victims of circumstance, but we who are empowered cut corners and cheat where possible and cause more widespread though less individually accountable effects.

Develop downtown, stop the media from being tabloid sensationalists, legalize non-harmful behavior, disperse the poor, encourage social development, reject social housing.
 
Ok, I see your point and can't really argue against it. I agree, I would love to see Gastown become the next center of nightlife and activity in Vancouver, and it's true that real estate development will definitely help clean-up the area. However, I still think you are neglecting the fact that addicts will not just go away. Hucksplat's idea of spreading them out sounds great, yet how achievable is it? I believe the first step to solving those problems is the creation of more mental and rehab institutions (riverview for example), to help those people somewhat straighten their life up (those willing to of course). Developing the area will bring typical vancouverites to the area for sure, like along the railroad tracks already, but once again, I really don't see how you can get someone as messed up as an addict to simply vanish. Anyways, things should change quite a lot before 2010, so we'll see how it turns out.
 
you answered your own question with your first few sentences. Institutions. Build them in rural BC, build a decent airport beside them, and build a town of service workers, subsidized, beside these institutions, so that the institutions aren't confused with jails. Subsidize flights to the institutions so that families aren't ignored. Tax the gentrifiers of the East Side to help pay for the institutions. Allocate a portion of the gentry tax for care allowance to families of these people, if they choose not to have their loved ones institutionalized. Some people may call it authoritarian displacement, but will these people really know the difference? Some might, but the vast majority of them, as long as they have their comforts (ie drugs, and fellow drug users), will be glad to be out of the cold! Sounds harsh, but their displacement is already inevitable. Why let an even harsher private market dictate their future, when the warm hand of bureaucracy can take control instead.
 
i know it was hilarious. The biggest thing i know they did was distribute those counterfeit $10 bills when the new 10's came out. Ghetto Kids United......in whistler, sooo awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top