[hickvision]

How much do you know about street gangs? Yeah, they're dangerous! Turf markings are extremely dangerous. They aren't put there to be art, it's like calling a "caution: floor is wet" sign "art".

I'm trying not to be offensive or personal here, but I'm stunned at this take that refuses to acknowledge how dangerous and harmful street gangs are to communities. If you've ever had to live in a neighborhood with them, like I have, then I doubt this would be as much of an issue for you?

[feet]

I said the symbols. Painted symbols can easily outlast the people who painted them, painted symbols existing is not an indicator of present danger. It's bizarre how you're conflating the two

[hickvision]

>Painted symbols can easily outlast the people who painted them

We aren't talking about that sort of painted symbol, though. I'm totally mystified as to why you refuse to acknowledge the nature of gang tags. They aren't art, and aren't intended to be art. Instead, they're enciphered threats to other criminals in the area, warning them to stay out. They don't and aren't intended to outlast the people who painted them.

And most importantly, they represent real danger to the entire community. Turf wars, mistaken identity shootings, as well as gang activities like narcotics, sex trafficking, and robbery/burglary are all to be expected in areas where gangs openly declare ownership of turf with tags.

[feet]

I understand the nature of gang tags but I also understand that gang tags are the minority of graffiti art

Also stating again: intent does not matter

[hickvision]

>I understand the nature of gang tags but I also understand that gang tags are the minority of graffiti art

Because in some rail yard somewhere lurks some really decked out train cars, you want to prevent a neighborhood plagued with gang violence from protecting their community?

[feet]

What I don't understand is how you seem to be equating graffiti with gang violence. Removing a tag won't stop any violence because painting a symbol is not violence, even if it is tangentially related. That almost sounds like treating a symptom and pretending the problem goes away.

If you really want to stop gang violence, people in poverty need opportunity and investment. Preventing gang members from painting things does nothing to solve the problem of violence, that's an absurd conclusion.

[hickvision]

>If you really want to stop gang violence, people in poverty need opportunity and investment.

The theory you are presenting, of monocausal criminality due to economic conditions, has been analyzed thoroughly and rejected decisively by the field of criminology for decades, now. It's easy to see why: we can compare impoverished groups both nationally and globally and discover that there is simply no causal, consistent relationship between poverty and violent criminality.

To be sure, economics can play a role and become a factor in motivating criminal behavior, but violent criminality is ultimately a choice that people make, not a direct consequence of poverty. Indeed, many groups suffering tremendous poverty exhibit very low rates of violent crime, and likewise, Suge Knight exists.