I’ve been watching a lot of the History Channel’s Gangland series and Investigation Discovery’s Gang Nation lately. One thing I’ve noticed is that much of the gang violence is due, directly or indirectly, to drugs. Well, no duh.

When Prohibition was enacted, the outlaws had a ready source of easy money. Bootlegging, moonshining, the speakeasies, et al. were extremely profitable to gangsters. The associated violence that the gangsters used was almost a natural side effect; turf wars, robbing each other, fighting law enforcement, etc. were just standard business practices for many criminals. People were willing to pay big money for their illicit hooch. Criminals who were limited to small-time crimes previously found big money bootlegging alcohol. > more <

In light of the recent tasering of a college student, and others, I just thought I’d make a comment.

Ideally, providing law enforcement (LE) personnel with “non-lethal” (actually, less-likely-lethal because certain people can still die based on their body’s physiology) should mean that cops will have better control of a situation. Not having a gun means they, theoretically, have more options available. (Actually, I’m not completely sure of what rational LE uses but I’m taking a guess). It also means that, if the situation warrants it, cops can use a weapon but not kill the suspect. > more <