John Eligon of the NY Times follows up their Memorial Day coverage of violence in Chicago by spending time with some Chicago gang members:
Bored, Broke and Armed: Clues to Chicago’s Gang Violence
Boredom is, indeed, a big part of gang life.
But boredom mixed with desperation can turn menacing.
And that was where several of Kaos’s gang allies found themselves on a chilly night in late October as they slipped on clear Guy Fawkes masks and set upon a man they saw walking by himself along King Drive. They were broke, and this is what they were going to do about it.
As darkness fell, Kaos said he peeked out of the window and saw about 10 gang allies slipping on the Guy Fawkes masks.
A few minutes later, one knocked on his door, Kaos said. He and some of the younger gang members had tried to rob a man, he told Kaos. But the man pulled a pistol, shot one of them in the leg and ran off.
An ambulance carted away the wounded man. His friends lingered in the courtyard, laughing about the fiasco.
Inside, Kaos shook his head.
“I don’t know what they were thinking,” he said, injecting a curse word.
He later lamented, “It only takes one to push a crowd.”
Yeah, it only takes one to push a crowd but sometimes it helps if that one is armed.
This is weird reporting, since only recently the Times editors explained that effective armed self-defense was a "fantasy":
To Be Fair, let me continue to ride down the tracks of the Times logical train:
Research refutes this idea [of standing up to gunmen]; it is far more likely that guns are used to harm the owners or other innocent people than to stop a crime.
So incidents with undesirable outcomes are more likely than incidents of effective self-defense, and therefore the notion of effective self-defense is a "fantasy"? Geez, let me try this Timesian analysis: some whingers complain that cars are unsafe and drone on about roughly 30,000 automobile related deaths per year, but that is a fantasy because studies show that, per passenger mile driven, almost everybody will Arrive Alive.
Not convinced? Me, neither.