A reader emailed alerted me to a telling and somewhat disturbing opinion from one of the Journal Sentinel’s “Reader Advisory” committee members in this mornings paper about the shooting over the 4th of July weekend:
The most important step is for the state Legislature to pass a concealed carry gun law. The gang members can kill each other all they want and we’ll all be better off, but citizens should be able to protect themselves without fear of conviction if they kill someone in self-defense. Secondly, although this won’t combat gun violence and is easier said than done, move to a safer neighborhood or city. – Barbara Lindert, Hartford
So the answer according to Mrs. Lindert is to put more guns on the street so that even more people could have been killed. Wrong and wrong.
Secondly, in her opinion, all those people who live in certain Milwaukee neighborhoods should just pack up and leave! I wonder where she thinks they should go, if it were only that easy? It’s a great example of exurban disconnect on display here by Mrs. Lindert. I wonder if people like her really think it’s just that easy for many of the honest, hard working, law abiding people who live in areas like those affected by violence to pick and move.
The disconnect here is thinking that anyone can just pick up and move and be able to purchase a place up in Hartford or Germantown – both of which have an extremely small amount of lower income housing, if any.
You have to wonder why more than half of the “community advisors” aren’t even from the community they seem so willing to dish out advice to, and obviously have little understanding of.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and son Carter.
I am so relieved that someone else found Barbara Lindert’s comments to be way off the mark. I nearly fell out of my chair when I read her comment. The comments by high school student, Melvin Coulter–Teach the fourth R: Resisting gangs, showed greater depth of thought than Lindert’s oversimplification.
In even more simple terms, here are Barbara Lindert’s great solutions:
1] Shoot to kill when one feels threatened, and don’t worry about the consequences.
2] Run away and hide from the problem.
Those solutions exhibit such a great depth of analysis, and comprehension of the problem that it’s hard to believe they were devised by a mere mortal human being.
Wow. Get. A. Clue.
First off, your “assumption” that more guns on the street equals more killing is incorrect. Statistically, since concealed carry laws have been enacted over the past several years, violent crime (yes, including murder) have gone down, not up. Secondly, not that I espouse to this argument, but it is somewhat apropos when it comes to posts made in this blog. I’ve read post after post, about mass transit, stating ‘this state/community has it, and this other city/county has it, so why doesn’t Milwaukee’? Well the same can be said for concealed carry. Every state other than the intellectuals in WI and IL has some sort of concealed carry allowance on their books…..Hmmmm interesting.
As for Lindert’s comment about moving to a different city…. Dan is correct, it is not the solution, but it is a possibility for some. There is reasonable housing AND jobs in communities like West Allis, Franklin, Waukesha, etc. Funny you mentioned two communities that are probably not conducive to lower income families, but did not mention the ones that are. Again, I’m not saying it is the solution to violent crime in the city, but to dismiss it because you don’t necessarily agree with it isn’t right either. It’s one of the reasons they have a committee and not one person coming up with solutions/ideas to combat problems our communities are facing.
Hoyt,
Quick question: When, in Barbara’s comments, did she ever utter the words “Shoot to kill when one feels threatened, and don’t worry about the consequences?” It’s elitist “putting words in people’s mouths” attitudes like that, that make civil dialogue almost impossible to have as it relates to politics and ideology.
.
While I don’t necessarily think CC would make a lot of difference when it comes to gang-related violence, I do think Dan and Hoyt’s comments are typical of the partisan hack who will consider only the merit in his side of the argument while completely dismissing any merit in the other.
As with most issues, there is truth to the arguments on both sides. If partisan hacks could ever get a grip and find the best solution instead of the one that fits their ideology, we’d be a lot better off.
You know that episode of the Simpsons where Lionell Hutz shudders at his vision of a world without lawyers (which is people of all kinds dancing in a circle happily)? Partisans are like that, imagining a world without their b.s.
Truth, common sense, and good policy never fit within partisan parameters.
Sean, you said “First off, your “assumption” that more guns on the street equals more killing is incorrect.” – how is it incorrect in this case when a gun was used to kill 4 people? Out of the 100 or so homicides in Milwaukee every year, the vast majority are committed with handguns.
More guns on the streets equal more people being killed. Period.
If it weren’t for handguns in this town, our homicide rate would be in the 10′s, not the 100′s. You can’t dispute that.
As for calling me out on the “every other state is doing it” comment, I’ll continue to advocate for following the positive examples of community development across the Country like mass transit. That kind of advocacy has a positive impact on our community that gets people jobs and boosts our economy.
It’s not “funny” I used Germantown and Hartford as my examples, it’s just logical when you consider where the advisory committee member was from herself.
Interesting that in all the criticism, no one picked up on the fact that 8 of the 13 committee members on the “advisory” committee are not from the city the paper supposedly represents. Voices from across the metro area should be heard of course, but this just plays into the commonly held perception that the Journal is more interested in appeasing those outside Milwaukee than serving the community it’s based in.
ATV: Thanks for you comments, but I’m not a “hack” no matter how many times you type it.
Sean-
“When, in Barbara’s comments, did she ever utter the words ‘Shoot to kill when one feels threatened, and don’t worry about the consequences?’”
I said, “IN SIMPLE TERMS,” but here are her words again:
“…citizens should be able to protect themselves without fear of conviction if they kill someone in self-defense.”
Maybe I should have said “Shoot to defend without fear of accidental killing or maiming, or the consequences thereof.” Is that better?
[[[ Oopsy! Did I kill him? You're saying he wasn't banging on my car window with the intent of carjacking? He just was panicked and desperate for help because his car broke down? And his child has appendecitis and is waiting in his car in urgent need of hospital care? Oh well, I'm sorry. I was acting in self-defense. I didn't intend to actually kill him. ]]]
Citizens that feel they need to carry guns to use in self-defense had better be fully aware of the fact that they might actually end a life with the use of that gun. Additionally they should be willing to accept at least some degree of responsiblility for that loss of life. Can you honestly expect that you, or anyone, will make the right decision as instantaneous judge and jury, and perhaps carry out a lethal sentence? THAT BELIEF IS ELITIST, Sean, if we must use that favorite right-wing term applied to any ideology you find disagreeable.
What if, as you are shooting to defend yourself, I walk around the corner and discover what appears, from my point of view, to be you violently attacking your alleged assailant? Do I have the right to draw my weapon, and fire upon you with perhaps lethal consequences, and not have to answer for my actions? All I would have to do is claim that you turned on me with your weapon, and I acted in self-defense and the defense of a fellow citizen. Oopsy, again! Sorry, Sean, but now you’re dead, too. And I go on with my life carefree, and confident that I acted appropriately with my split-second analysis of the situation.
More guns are not a solution to violence.
Dan,
Then please answer my follow up question in the July 9 thread.