Yes - Graffiti can be are but most graffiti is just gangs tagging the
neighborhoods. In Albuquerque, we have
cut the tagger problem down to a manageable level. If we see graffiti
we call the "Graffiti Hot Line" and a city
crew removes or covers it the same on the next day. I use to describe
tagging to my students as just like
dogs lifting their hind legs to mark their territory. I believe all
cities should check into our cities graffiti removal
On Aug 31, 2008, at 7:25 AM, Jean King wrote:
> For several days I have been thinking about the very disturbing
> article that you mentioned as being "articulate on the subject" of
> I must have missed out on something here. I haven't heard of
> "taggers" or graffiti artists killing people who try to stop them.
> Where and when did such a thing happen? How many times has it
> occurred? Are there gangs of killer taggers running our streets?
> Where are the facts? I couldn't find any in the article.
> The article you gave the URL to seems to be attempting to define
> differences in conservative and liberal thought processes and
> beliefs about graffiti and private property, among other things.
> The logic there is faulty at best. Then, somehow, the author turns
> to advocate shooting taggers. Have I missed something?
> The article advocates "shooting to wound". Interesting. I hope
> the righteous citizen who takes this to heart is an excellent
> shot. According to what the author of the article is suggesting,
> at the very least people will be hurt, if not killed, and not by
> killer taggers, but rather by self righteous conservatives. The
> general public is at risk of stray bullets and anyone could end up
> dead or injured. I don't know about you, but it seems
> irresponsible to encourage people to shoot people.
> If there are killer taggers, and again that is a big IF with no
> facts to support it, do you believe there should be vigilante
> squads to hunt them? I live in a large city with a great deal of
> graffiti. We have laws. We have police. I seem to recall
> somewhere hearing that it was not the best idea for me to take the
> law into my own hands. When I spot someone breaking the law, such
> as painting on my neighbor's fence, I call the police. That's what
> they are there for. Vandalism is vandalism. Private property is
> private property. There are laws dealing with graffiti and
> vandalism in my city. There are also gun laws.
> There is a difference between simply vandalizing property and
> creating art, at least in my mind, although not in the eyes of the
> law. Most of the graffiti that appears in my neighborhood is not
> very aesthetically pleasing, but some of it is truly thought
> provoking. Some of the graffiti in my neighborhood is done at the
> invitation of the property owner. But that aside, since when does
> graffiti create the need to shoot its creators?
> Years ago I used to read the National Enquirer because I found it
> humorous, that was, until I realized some people took it
> seriously. This article reminds me that some people believe
> anything they read.
> Jean King
> Houston, Texas
> On Aug 26, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Shannon McGraw wrote:
>> I remember a while ago, a discussion on graffiti. Taggers are now
>> killing people that try to stop them. I may be the only conservative
>> art teacher in America..but at the time, I said graffiti is not to be
>> admired and elevated to art. It's a crime, and giving crime a 'pass'
>> only allows it to grow; hence the fact that many are embolden to kill
>> those that try and stop them.
>> Here's someone more articulate on the subject.
>> http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/08/26/ >> on_shooting_tagge
>> Shannon McGraw
Woody, Retired in Albuquerque