"You know what I want to know? How did guns wind up in my neighbourhood? ...We need a show on how did these guns get there? Why is there so much violence in our community?"
-rapper Nas, on the Colbert Report, when asked about his criminal gun possession
Uhh...
Nice dodge, Nas ;)
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Uhhh..i don't know ..why don't you go ask your supplier?
From what i understand, it's a mix of illegal buys, pawnshop schemes and inter-county trafficking.
Gosh..i'll bet that sweetheart just does not sleep well at night worrying about about all those nasty guns!..
..and since when did the Colbert Report turn into the Smothers brothers?
Dumb quote? I think you misunderstood it, possibly because you took it out of context. He was not saying that to justify his gun crime (he was 17 years old at the time, after all.) There was some back and forth with Colbert prior to him uttering the quote you so deftly posted, and it was meant as a broader statement.
He's saying that rap music speaks to the way the community is, and that O'Reilly is quick to criticize that instead of focusing on the broader issue.
Now, you look at inner-city crime, and a large cause is the incredible amount of guns on the streets. This is a fact of life. And the Government doesn't do anything about it. That is what Nas is angry about.
Thanks for the context "Minute Lake". It makes a big difference.
Gotta disagree on you with this bit, though:
"Now, you look at inner-city crime, and a large cause is the incredible amount of guns on the streets."
It's got more to do with the lack of education, the victim-mentality, and the horrible morals of "inner city youth". The "war on drugs" is also a large contributer. Guns, though ... they're just tools. England has similar problems even though they have much fewer firearms.
Guns certainly don't HELP the situation, but they're not a major factor. We were killing each other for thousands of years before guns came to the scene, so let's not pretend that we'd be one big happy family without them.
Yes, there was a lot of commentary before his comment about guns. I do not think I misunderstood it OR took it out of context, though. Check out this site to watch his full interview on the show:
http://www.hiphopmusic.com/2008/07/nas_on_colbert_report.html
It was a dumb quote for two reasons. The more obvious one, of course, being his poor grammar. The second is his equally-as-obvious dodging of the question he was asked. When Colbert asked him to elaborate on his illegal gun possession (his age at the time of the charge is very irrelevant), he shifted the blame on the fact that there were guns from Israel and other countries in his community. Well obviously those guns must have walked from the middle east to his front door! Uh.. no. You can possess a gun, illegally, if you break the law and get yourself a gun. His shifting the blame onto the actual guns was the "dumb" part of it.
Most people do not maintain good grammar when speaking, even those with "white"/"upper class" dialects. Criticizing him for the manner in which he speaks is unfair for numerous reasons, but if you wish to do so you certainly have no reason for picking that particular quote anyway. You can just attack the majority of hip-hop musicians in the majority of their interviews.
When Colbert asked him to elaborate on his illegal gun possession (his age at the time of the charge is very irrelevant), he shifted the blame on the fact that there were guns from Israel and other countries in his community.
I don't think he shifted blame. You'll remember, first of all, that Colbert is a comedian who is intentionally facetious. He was implicitly making fun of O'Reilly, because it is ridiculous to focus on the juvenile conviction of your opponent in any logical debate.
That is to say, Colbert is not expecting a serious answer to his question about the gun possession. It is self-evident to Colbert's target demographic that it is a non-issue, and Nas came into the interview with a goal, a message, and his response reflects that message.
(What follows is the response to Alex.)
Guns certainly don't HELP the situation, but they're not a major factor. We were killing each other for thousands of years before guns came to the scene, so let's not pretend that we'd be one big happy family without them.
Eh, this doesn't really address the argument. No one is claiming that there would be a "big happy family" in the absence of guns. Certainly, I think we can both agree that violence predates guns.
But at the same time, it is true that guns facilitate violence and anger. The age of guns has had more widespread destruction and death than the ages that predated it.
I find your comparison to the UK apt. Let's compare murder rates:
USA: 42.8 people per 100,000 people
UK: 14.1 people per 100,000 people
While this is obviously not conclusive proof as it doesn't control for other factors, it at leasts disputes the evidence you presented. While knife crimes are more of a problem in the UK, it is much harder to kill someone with a knife, and the murder rate is significantly lower.
"The age of guns has had more widespread destruction and death than the ages that predated it."
Nonsense. In absolute numbers, ok, sure, but as a percentage of the global population? Not even close.
"While this is obviously not conclusive proof as it doesn't control for other factors, it at leasts disputes the evidence you presented."
Not really - I said the UK situation was similar, not the same. Even more importantly, the murder rate is much more related to social factors than it is to the legality of firearm ownership. For instance, Venezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world, even though it's illegal to own a gun.
"While knife crimes are more of a problem in the UK, it is much harder to kill someone with a knife, and the murder rate is significantly lower."
Sure, that's true. However, I'm much less worried about the murder rate than I am about crime overall. For instance, Canada has twice as many rapes per capita (73 per 100,000) as the US does. Personally, I'd much rather we had the same murder rate and give our women a chance to defend themselves.
Not to mention that we also have more robberies, car thefts, etc.
In the end, it's a question of attitude really. In the US you may have a higher chance of getting killed, but you also have a much better chance to defend yourself. In Canada and the UK, you're mandated by law to be a victim.
I don't know about you, but I don't like having the government tell me "if someone pulls a gun on you, tough luck, you have to die so our murder statistics can be lower".
Post a Comment