Saturday, April 14, 2012

Legal guns killing Chi-Town....or not

Opinion writer Edward McClelland, jumping to conclusions and falling short, is blaming legally owned firearms for the 60% increase in murders in Chicago. In his most recent Opinion: Did Overturning The Handgun Law Lead to More Shootings?

For anyone looking for a reason as to why Chicagoans are shooting each other more often, how about this one: it’s now legal to own a handgun here.

So, let me get this straight. People are going through the hoops to get a FOID card, background check, purchasing a firearm that can be traced back to them, just to go shoot people? What explains the high murder rate before Chicagoan could legally own a firearm? Dumbass!

The Supreme Court issued its McDonald v. Chicago decision, which held that local governments do not have the right to write their own gun control laws, in 2010. The decision overturned the city’s handgun ban, and the police department began issuing permits later that year.

No, dumbass, the McDonald decision was that the Second Amendment applied to the states, through the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, it wasn't about gun control, it was about gun bans.

Neither does the Supreme Court, which interprets the Constitution without considering the real-world consequences of its decisions. 

I see, it's the SCOTUS that let's the criminals get the guns.

The gun lobby’s solution to the misuse of guns -- laws prohibiting criminals from owning firearms -- does not work. 

And it's about time you anti-rights zealots realize that prohibitive laws only punish the law breaker and don't actually prevent unlawful activity.

First of all, it only takes effect after someone commits a crime with a gun. Second of all, most “illegal guns” are guns that were legally issued, then stolen.

I didn't realize that the city of Chicago issues firearms to it's residents. It seems here that the opinion writer is looking for an out right ban on firearms, that same ban I guess, that resulted in the very low violent crime rate in Chicago before 2010.

I do have to give kudos to the writer for staying on topic and not race baiting or blood dancing.


  1. Bill- I just wrote a comment about this on Mike's blog yesterday.

    I can assure everyone, including Mr. McClelland, that the lifting of the handgun ban did not create a whole new breed of gun owner in our city. We've always had the right to own shotguns and rifles in this city. When the ban was lifted, it just allowed legal gun owners, to go out and purchase handguns, legally. I will buy into the liberal argument in regards to Chicago's handgun ban when they do one thing, just one. All they have to do is show me a case. Which occurred in the city of Chicago. Where a legal, licensed, and registered handgun owner, shoots and kills an unarmed citizen. Of course, I will not count domestic altercations.

    1. Anytime there is an uptick in gun related crimes, the antis want to point to some new law but fail to realize that murders and violent crime are still generally on a decline.

      You will not find anyone in the criminal justice community that will not agree that if a criminal wants a gun, he'll get a gun one way or another. Jails are areas where everything is forbidden, however, inmates make weapons and alcohol and the drug problem inside is nearly as bad as on the outside.

      If the antis would put as much effort into identifying the causes of crime as they do in blaming guns for crime, we could clean up the bad areas of the country. There are only about a dozen or so cities that contribute to our murder rate and violent crime rate.