Gun Laws: Chicago Politicians Think You're Stupid
Originally posted in my new blog, blagerhead.blogspot.com on July 12, 2010.
Recently the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's 28 year-old handgun ban as unconstitutional. While the outcome surprised few, Chicago's reaction to the ruling has raised a few eyebrows, especially among the pro-liberty crowd.
In response to the ruling, the city of Chicago has moved to revise its handgun ownership laws. Among the new laws, which are already being challenged, with support from the NRA, are a restriction to one gun per household and a continued ban on sale within the city limits of Chicago. None of this is surprising to anyone following the continuing saga of gun ownership rights in Chicago and across the nation. What is surprising, is the notion, promoted by "city leadership" that these tough new restrictions are necessary to prevent an outbreak of handgun violence in the city.
Hello! Planet Earth calling. This is Chicago, Illinois we're talking about, right? The same city that earlier this very year was contemplating calling in the National Guard to help with the outbreak of violence in the city? The very type of outbreak about which they are warning us now? Is that really the position they are taking?
This wouldn't be so sad if they weren't serious and the stakes weren't so high. There have already been at least152 murders with a firearm in Chicago (as of June 15) and more are sure to follow. The city has become so dangerous that an 80 year-old Korean war veteran, a month before the ban was lifted, shot and killed an intruder who first fired at him. This, despite it being against the law at the time to own a handgun. But being 80 years old with your wife and grandson in the home leaves you few realistic choices for self defense. Luckily for this family one person made the right choice and it saved lives.
So why do I suggest that Chicago politicians think their constituents are stupid? The same reason most politicians think the same about their constituants. They present scary sounding facts to their adoring public and count on you to not read between the lines, or worse yet, not read what is right in front of them. And in most cases, they are correct. Case in point, directly from the text of Chicago's new ordinances:
"Whereas, between the beginning of this year and June 15, 2010, there were 742 aggrevated batteries with a firearm, of which 36 took place inside a residence, and 152 murders with a firearm, of which 19 were inside a residence;"
Let's look at this deeper, since this is part of their reasoning for limiting Chicagoans' right to defend life to the inside of their residence (not even the front porch or yard is legally defendable under the new laws). They argue that self defense must be limited to the home because of statistics like those above. And what they count on you to NOT notice, is the facts staring you right in the face, namely that over 95% of the aggrevated batteries mentioned took place OUTSIDE the home, as did over 87% of the murders. They are also counting on you to be grateful to them for making you a whopping 5% safer from aggrevated battery, or 12% safer from murder. Of course that's not true either.
Since, according to their own numbers, you are about 20 times more likely to be assaulted with a firearm outside your home, or about 8 times more likely to be murdered, to the astute observer this comes as very little comfort. As long as you cower within your home with your one, and only one, properly registered firearm at the ready, you will be safe. If however, you choose not to live the life of a hermit, you must leave that firearm at home, unlike the criminals in the above offense, who will have no fear taking your property, or your life, or both.
Chicago politicians supporting this bill also point out other obvious pitfalls of higher gun ownership, like increased danger for paramedics and other first responders, even though this has not been shown to be an issue in the other 48 states. But Daley and his cronies have never been known for their use of facts in support of gun control, so I guess this latest news really comes as no surprise. More to follow as facts, and the next court case, unfold.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Good post.
This is a great example of why Chicago's restrictions will fall again via the courts.
1) The central component of the right to arms is defense of self and loved ones. This is settled law now, and the right is not merely substantive, but fundamental.
2) A person is many times more likely to need self-defense outside the home that inside.
3) Chicago's approach is "interest-balancing." They reason that since criminal attacks occur outside the home more frequently, they can ban guns outside the home.
This is the same, failed reasoning that eventually lost the citywide ban. The conclusion was that cities cannot take an interest-balancing approach. People have the right to defend themselves, and given they are more likely to be attacked outside the home, there is no place that right is needed more than outside the home.
Another city run by a liberal government that is so out of touch with their constituents and rest of the country. Cities that allow citizens to protect themselves are much safer every day. When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.
that dangerous of a place, then I would suggest moving away from there and let the city fall to ruins.
While it may not be bad advice to move out of Chicago, not everyone can afford to do so. Many poor people are just plain stuck there and many other people have not place better to go, or are dependent on a job or family there.
Also, Americans have a right to live where they please as long as they aren't harming anyone else, and that includes the right to self-defense and the tools to do this efficiently, both inside their homes and in their work place, as well as traveling between and going about their daily business.
Not only that, those of us who may occasionally wish/need to visit Chicago have that right as well.
It's past time to run out the type of politician who thinks he/she owns a place like Chicago, or America itself, and replace them with SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE.
I do not buy the excuse that people just cant leave. If someone really wanted to leave they could, where there is a will there is a way. It all comes down to how bad you want it and how much effort you are willing to put forth, no one said it was easy. For those that use obligations such as house , bills etc etc, as an excuse, I dont buy that either. In most cases people use material objects as their basis for not being able to leave, that just goes to show how our society influences our "needs" and what we should or should not have. In all actuality, it is a sign that we have too much crap in our lives.
We agree that people have the right to live anywhere they want, but there are some considerations before they make that decision. Suppose there was a sewer treatment facility next door to a house that you absolutely loved and you were hell bent on getting it. Fine, go for it. However, after you get the house, do you think you have any ground to stand on in complaining about the facility and wanting to have it removed? You have every right to complain about it, but no one is obligated to listen knowing that you knew about the facility before you purchased the house.
As far as visiting, again people have that right. But a little responsibility is required from them as well to know about the place before they go in order to make an informed decision about the place and whether or not they are willing to accept the risks. If they do decide to accept the risks then there is no one to blame but themself if something should happen, I say this loosely as there are always unforeseen incidents but the concept and idea still holds true regardless.
Good thing I don't live there. And never have. And never will, as long as the likes of Daley rule the city.