June 24, 2012 (Updated, Sunday, 3:30 pm) - So far, three people have died this weekend in Chicago's ongoing street violence. Despite having one of the strictest sets of anti-gun laws in the nation, gun violence in this city seems out of control. From last Friday night through this morning, three people have died and 26 were wounded by bullets in Chicago:
The Chicago Tribune reported that Davis "was walking with at least one other person when a grey van pulled up and a passenger, a man wearing a dark-colored hoodie, exited with a gun." According to a police spokesman, the shooter fired at Davis, hitting him, then shot him several more times after he fell to the ground. "The shooter then got back into the van, which was driven by another man about the same age – between the ages of 20 and 25," said the Tribune.
The shooters are almost exclusively criminals engaged in illegal activity. It is always interesting that the local media never seems to note whether the guns involved in these shootings were registered and legally possessed. I will go out on a limb, however, and guess that more than 99% of those guns are not registered and are, therefore, not legally owned. In other words, these gun crimes are not being committed by law-abiding, upstanding citizens who follow the rules.
You know, the kind of people for whom the state legislators of Illinois work so hard to make legal gun ownership so damned difficult. The folks for whom Chicago's Mayor and City Council work so hard to deny full Second Amendment rights.
This is in spite of the fact that outside of Illinois, 49 states have legalized concealed carry in some form, allowing citizens to possess a firearm outside of their homes for protection. For some reason, the Democrats who oppose their own constituents' right to bear arms cannot accept the fact that concealed carry actually lowers violent crime and makes the citizenry safer.
The Chicago's mayor and city council do not want its citizenry to be safer. If they did, they would allow us to carry guns (concealed carry).
Chicago aldermen are allowed to carry a concealed weapon if they choose to, and the mayor has armed bodyguards, but those hypocrites are either too stupid or too uncaring to allow you and me the same right to protect ourselves.
One of their lame "solutions" to the problem of criminals shooting the hell out of Chicago is to buy back guns. But that's a waste of time and of taxpayers' money.
"The city government has a great fondness for gun turn-in events," wrote Steve Chapman in The Chicago Tribune on June 17. "It's done six of them in the past six years, collecting more than 23,000 weapons. This one will be held at 23 churches, and anyone handing over a firearm will get a $100 gift card. The guns will then be destroyed. The motive behind these efforts is not hard to understand in a place that had 433 murders last year and has seen a spike this year. Dozens of shootings take place in Chicago every week."
Sure, the motive is easy to grasp. However, the logic is another matter. Chapman noted that in 2010, then-Mayor Richard M. Daley said, "We have just too many guns in our society. When someone has access to a gun, they use it." Mayor Rahm Emanuel, wrote Chapman, says that a gun buy-back is a way "we can reduce the number of guns on our streets." Idiots, both Daley and Emanuel. Do they really think that the dangerous lunatics are turning in their guns?
Chapman's brilliant commentary was right on the money. "Contrary to Daley," he wrote, "most people who own guns never use them for anything but legal purposes (hunting, target shooting, self-defense). Contrary to Emanuel, the weapons this sort of venture yields are probably not the ones carried in the streets or the ones used in crimes. The reduction also represents a minuscule share of the firearms in the city, which may number over a million. Think about it: Who is most likely to turn in a firearm for a $100 reward? Someone with 1) a cheap gun and 2) no criminal propensity — say, Aunt Millie disposing of a rusty revolver her late husband left in the nightstand."
Consider this bold statement:
"Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes and appears to produce an extremely small and statistically insignificant change in accidental deaths. If the rest country had adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions in 1992, at least 1,570 murders and over 4,177 rapes would have been avoided." Source: "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," written by John R. Lott., Jr. and David B. Mustard, published by the Law School at the University of Chicago.
In spite of the years-long propaganda by liberals, which falsely warned that concealed carry would result in a "wild west" scenario of frenzied gun slinging, the murder rate in the United States has gone down. In fact, it's the lowest it's been in a long time. Reuters recently reported that the FBI said on June 11 that "the number of murders dropped to the lowest in more than four decades."
Most likely, none of the shootings that happened last Friday night into Saturday morning would not have been prevented even if Illinoisans had the same full Second Amendment rights as our fellow Americans have. That's not what I am suggesting. However, there are countless numbers of robberies and assaults every week in Chicago that might have been prevented had the victims been able to pull a legally possessed pistol out of their pocket to ward off - and shoot if need be - their assailants.
The old saying that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is as true as always. It is also true of knives, baseball bats, hammers and a thousand other items that can be used to kill and injure. But not all people kill other people. Unless you're killing in self defense, you're a lunatic and/or a criminally minded person.
The gangsters and thrill seekers who commit violence without regard for human life are the products of a sick culture. That, however, is grist for a separate post. I will say now, though, that no gun buy-back stunts will change the fact that savages walk among us. The fact that they do only lends legitimacy to the arguments in favor of concealed carry.
Despite Chicago's restrictive gun laws - we can own one gun but only keep inside of our homes - the bad guys still have plenty of firepower. The laws have done nothing - nothing - to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminals. It is so difficult for law abiding people in Chicago to get a license for a gun that some who feel the need to own a gun just don't. And, even if they did, they would not be legally able to carry it with them as they walk, say, through their dangerous neighborhood at night on their way to or from work.
The Daily Gossip noted on June 18 that "Chicago has become more dangerous than Afghanistan," and they cited a report from WBEZ that said that since 2001 "more than 5,000 people have been killed by gun fire in Chicago," compared to 2,000 in Afghanistan. That Daily Gossip post had the headline "8 Killed And 37 Others Wounded In Chicago Shootings," about the violent weekend of Friday, June 15 -- a week before the violence that killed 14-year old Antonio Davis last Friday night.
There was a telling passage in the Daily Gossip post. "When Michael Shields, president of the Fraternal Order of Police," reported DG, "was asked where was the police when the killings happened, he answered the Chicago police department was short-staffed. 'Chicago police officers can’t be everywhere', said Shields. 'Because they’re racing from one 911 call to the next, and with manpower as it is right now, it’s very difficult to deter crime'." The CPD has been short staffed for years, but DG noted that "Some people said the violence spree wouldn’t have left so many wounded and dead if the Chicago police department wouldn’t have paid so much attention to the wedding Obama attended. 100 police officers were assigned for safety purposes at Laura Jarrett’s wedding."
I am not blaming Obama or Jarrett for the violence. However, it highlights the fact that there is only so much that any police force - even one with no manpower shortage - can do. If you are being attacked, whether at home or on the street, you basically have three choices of action. You can (A) try to run away from your attacker, (B) call 911 for help or (C) try to defend yourself. Good luck with choice A, especially if you're elderly, out of shape, pregnant or disabled. Enjoy your wait if you choose B. If you go with C, you'd better be damned good with your fists because Mayor Emanuel and the idiots in the City Council (who are legally allowed to carry concealed guns) don't think you have the right to defend yourself with a firearm.
How many homicides caused by stabbing and assault would be prevented in Chicago if concealed carry was allowed? How many non-fatal incidents - so many of which we never hear about in the news - could be avoided? It is not possible to give a number, of course, but common sense says that plenty of would be attackers would think twice about preying on somebody that they fear might be packing heat. It might have helped the victims in these cases, in these cases, in these cases and many other cases.
Gun buy-back programs are a cynical, ineffective joke. Illinois does not have any concealed carry like the other 49 states do, and yet things are out of control here. The folks who should by rights be allowed to legally carry firearms for protection are left defenseless against uncivilized savages who have guns illegally. Does this really make sense to anybody other than the morons in Springfield? 49 states have seen the light on concealed carry, and look at the murder rates nationwide: Down, down, and down. But in Chicago it's up, up and up.
How can the liberals continue to hawk fearmongering about legal possession of firearms? Denying the good citizens of Illinois their full Second Amendment rights has done nothing to prevent thousands upon thousands of deaths in Chicago alone. In fact, because they are left defenseless, I would say that the restrictive gun laws of Chicago and Illinois have actually caused people to die unnecessarily. And that's criminal.
The dead victims:
Antonio Davis, 14, of the 800 block of South Eberhart Avenue, who was fatally shot at approximately 8:40 p.m. near the intersection of South Union Avenue and West 69th Street, officials said. Tyquan Tyler, 13, of the 6500 block of South Rhodes Avenue, "died after being shot in the chest in a drive-by shooting about 1:30 a.m. Sunday in the 6200 block of South Rhodes Avenue. About 30 minutes later, 29-year-old Hansen Jackson was shot several times in the chest in the 3700 block of West Chicago Avenue, and later died at Mount Sinai Hospital." (More at CBS2)
The Chicago Tribune reported that Davis "was walking with at least one other person when a grey van pulled up and a passenger, a man wearing a dark-colored hoodie, exited with a gun." According to a police spokesman, the shooter fired at Davis, hitting him, then shot him several more times after he fell to the ground. "The shooter then got back into the van, which was driven by another man about the same age – between the ages of 20 and 25," said the Tribune.
NOTE: Shortly after I posted this, I ran across a news story about a 14-year old boy in Arizona who saved his own life and the life of his siblings thanks to the fact that he had a gun. According to the Arizona Republic on June 22, "A man with a rifle had forced his way into the home. He aimed the gun at the boy, and the boy shot him, police said."The Trib's list of the other shootings during the same period reveals what similar lists from the many violent weekends in Chicago always reveal: The shootings are most often gang-related or seemingly random in nature.
The shooters are almost exclusively criminals engaged in illegal activity. It is always interesting that the local media never seems to note whether the guns involved in these shootings were registered and legally possessed. I will go out on a limb, however, and guess that more than 99% of those guns are not registered and are, therefore, not legally owned. In other words, these gun crimes are not being committed by law-abiding, upstanding citizens who follow the rules.
You know, the kind of people for whom the state legislators of Illinois work so hard to make legal gun ownership so damned difficult. The folks for whom Chicago's Mayor and City Council work so hard to deny full Second Amendment rights.
This is in spite of the fact that outside of Illinois, 49 states have legalized concealed carry in some form, allowing citizens to possess a firearm outside of their homes for protection. For some reason, the Democrats who oppose their own constituents' right to bear arms cannot accept the fact that concealed carry actually lowers violent crime and makes the citizenry safer.
The Chicago's mayor and city council do not want its citizenry to be safer. If they did, they would allow us to carry guns (concealed carry).
Chicago aldermen are allowed to carry a concealed weapon if they choose to, and the mayor has armed bodyguards, but those hypocrites are either too stupid or too uncaring to allow you and me the same right to protect ourselves.
One of their lame "solutions" to the problem of criminals shooting the hell out of Chicago is to buy back guns. But that's a waste of time and of taxpayers' money.
"The city government has a great fondness for gun turn-in events," wrote Steve Chapman in The Chicago Tribune on June 17. "It's done six of them in the past six years, collecting more than 23,000 weapons. This one will be held at 23 churches, and anyone handing over a firearm will get a $100 gift card. The guns will then be destroyed. The motive behind these efforts is not hard to understand in a place that had 433 murders last year and has seen a spike this year. Dozens of shootings take place in Chicago every week."
Sure, the motive is easy to grasp. However, the logic is another matter. Chapman noted that in 2010, then-Mayor Richard M. Daley said, "We have just too many guns in our society. When someone has access to a gun, they use it." Mayor Rahm Emanuel, wrote Chapman, says that a gun buy-back is a way "we can reduce the number of guns on our streets." Idiots, both Daley and Emanuel. Do they really think that the dangerous lunatics are turning in their guns?
Chapman's brilliant commentary was right on the money. "Contrary to Daley," he wrote, "most people who own guns never use them for anything but legal purposes (hunting, target shooting, self-defense). Contrary to Emanuel, the weapons this sort of venture yields are probably not the ones carried in the streets or the ones used in crimes. The reduction also represents a minuscule share of the firearms in the city, which may number over a million. Think about it: Who is most likely to turn in a firearm for a $100 reward? Someone with 1) a cheap gun and 2) no criminal propensity — say, Aunt Millie disposing of a rusty revolver her late husband left in the nightstand."
Consider this bold statement:
"Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes and appears to produce an extremely small and statistically insignificant change in accidental deaths. If the rest country had adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions in 1992, at least 1,570 murders and over 4,177 rapes would have been avoided." Source: "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," written by John R. Lott., Jr. and David B. Mustard, published by the Law School at the University of Chicago.In spite of the years-long propaganda by liberals, which falsely warned that concealed carry would result in a "wild west" scenario of frenzied gun slinging, the murder rate in the United States has gone down. In fact, it's the lowest it's been in a long time. Reuters recently reported that the FBI said on June 11 that "the number of murders dropped to the lowest in more than four decades."
Most likely, none of the shootings that happened last Friday night into Saturday morning would not have been prevented even if Illinoisans had the same full Second Amendment rights as our fellow Americans have. That's not what I am suggesting. However, there are countless numbers of robberies and assaults every week in Chicago that might have been prevented had the victims been able to pull a legally possessed pistol out of their pocket to ward off - and shoot if need be - their assailants.
The old saying that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is as true as always. It is also true of knives, baseball bats, hammers and a thousand other items that can be used to kill and injure. But not all people kill other people. Unless you're killing in self defense, you're a lunatic and/or a criminally minded person.
The gangsters and thrill seekers who commit violence without regard for human life are the products of a sick culture. That, however, is grist for a separate post. I will say now, though, that no gun buy-back stunts will change the fact that savages walk among us. The fact that they do only lends legitimacy to the arguments in favor of concealed carry.
Despite Chicago's restrictive gun laws - we can own one gun but only keep inside of our homes - the bad guys still have plenty of firepower. The laws have done nothing - nothing - to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminals. It is so difficult for law abiding people in Chicago to get a license for a gun that some who feel the need to own a gun just don't. And, even if they did, they would not be legally able to carry it with them as they walk, say, through their dangerous neighborhood at night on their way to or from work.
The Daily Gossip noted on June 18 that "Chicago has become more dangerous than Afghanistan," and they cited a report from WBEZ that said that since 2001 "more than 5,000 people have been killed by gun fire in Chicago," compared to 2,000 in Afghanistan. That Daily Gossip post had the headline "8 Killed And 37 Others Wounded In Chicago Shootings," about the violent weekend of Friday, June 15 -- a week before the violence that killed 14-year old Antonio Davis last Friday night.
There was a telling passage in the Daily Gossip post. "When Michael Shields, president of the Fraternal Order of Police," reported DG, "was asked where was the police when the killings happened, he answered the Chicago police department was short-staffed. 'Chicago police officers can’t be everywhere', said Shields. 'Because they’re racing from one 911 call to the next, and with manpower as it is right now, it’s very difficult to deter crime'." The CPD has been short staffed for years, but DG noted that "Some people said the violence spree wouldn’t have left so many wounded and dead if the Chicago police department wouldn’t have paid so much attention to the wedding Obama attended. 100 police officers were assigned for safety purposes at Laura Jarrett’s wedding."
I am not blaming Obama or Jarrett for the violence. However, it highlights the fact that there is only so much that any police force - even one with no manpower shortage - can do. If you are being attacked, whether at home or on the street, you basically have three choices of action. You can (A) try to run away from your attacker, (B) call 911 for help or (C) try to defend yourself. Good luck with choice A, especially if you're elderly, out of shape, pregnant or disabled. Enjoy your wait if you choose B. If you go with C, you'd better be damned good with your fists because Mayor Emanuel and the idiots in the City Council (who are legally allowed to carry concealed guns) don't think you have the right to defend yourself with a firearm.
How many homicides caused by stabbing and assault would be prevented in Chicago if concealed carry was allowed? How many non-fatal incidents - so many of which we never hear about in the news - could be avoided? It is not possible to give a number, of course, but common sense says that plenty of would be attackers would think twice about preying on somebody that they fear might be packing heat. It might have helped the victims in these cases, in these cases, in these cases and many other cases.Gun buy-back programs are a cynical, ineffective joke. Illinois does not have any concealed carry like the other 49 states do, and yet things are out of control here. The folks who should by rights be allowed to legally carry firearms for protection are left defenseless against uncivilized savages who have guns illegally. Does this really make sense to anybody other than the morons in Springfield? 49 states have seen the light on concealed carry, and look at the murder rates nationwide: Down, down, and down. But in Chicago it's up, up and up.
How can the liberals continue to hawk fearmongering about legal possession of firearms? Denying the good citizens of Illinois their full Second Amendment rights has done nothing to prevent thousands upon thousands of deaths in Chicago alone. In fact, because they are left defenseless, I would say that the restrictive gun laws of Chicago and Illinois have actually caused people to die unnecessarily. And that's criminal.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting! Keep it classy.