[HTML1]
“These aren’t easy days for gun control advocates,” the Chicago Sun Times editorial board admits, giving us good news from the git-go. The paper’s anti-pistol polemic proceeds to laud the City’s unconstitutional efforts to subvert the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision, which struck down a handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (the 2A now trumps local and state law). And then they stop making sense. “The [gun control] laws — which limits who can own a gun; requires a permit, registry of each gun and firearms training; limits the number of guns per owner, and prohibits guns outside the home — does not discourage gun owners from exercising their Second Amendment rights. It merely regulates that right in a way that helps protect Chicagoans.” Now that is some serious FUD. It gets worse . . .
Research suggests these commonsense regulations will prevent unnecessary death and injury. Studies show that the more guns in the home, the more likely there are to be suicides by gun, accidental shootings by — and of — children, and domestic arguments that end with somebody being shot to death. One important 1998 study found that guns in the home were four times more likely to be used in accidents than in self-defense.
Paging Bruce Krafft. Will TTAG deconstructionist Bruce Krafft please report to the comments section? Suffice it to say that any editorial that cites research or studies to back up its position without providing links to said data is full of shit. Ipso facto.
Here’s the really scary bit: there are readers who nod their proverbial head and accept unsubstantiated quasi-scientific arguments without questioning the authority or veracity of the anonymous writers pushing the propaganda. I suspect (hope?) the Internet generation will not take this kind of crap at face value. Or at least learn to read between the lines. In this case, they don’t have to.
We are under no illusions that handgun regulation will make a big dent in Chicago’s gun violence problem. Chicago once had a gun ban and that failed to stop or curb the shootings in our streets.
Roger that. So WTF are they talking about? I’m seeing this from a pro-gun position, but doesn’t that admission completely undermine the Sun Times’ entire argument?
I suppose you could wiggle around the word “big” describing the gun control laws’ potential “dent” in Chicago’s gun violence. As in “even if it makes a small dent it’s worth it.” But it hardly seems worth the effort. The Times’ desultory conclusion indicates a similar lack of conviction. Thank God.
But easily available guns help make today’s violence possible.
As does gun control.
Research shows that 73% of all those who use the term “research shows” are just making $#!+ up.
“80 percent of the time, it works every time.” Brian Fantana “Anchorman.
I guess George Costanza was right — “Its not a lie if you believe it”
“The ban on gun stores, for example, makes it that much harder to move guns into Chicago. Research from 2007 shows that relatively high transaction costs in Chicago’s underground market compared to other cities have acted as a limit on sales.”
This is such BS. I bought my Walther PPQ in a suburb. The cost? A $4 Metra ticket. I’m really ashamed of my city sometimes. I would absolutely love to hold a pro-second amendment rally in the city and protest these stupid laws.
+ 1 let me know where and when
The only person who should be allowed to use the phrase “Some say…” is Jeremy Clarkson.
+1
Some say, they flunked out of pre-school. Others say that they were dropped on their heads as children and then locked in a box. All we know is, they’re called gun grabbers!
Chicago doesn’t have a gun problem. It can’t have a gun problem because Chicago has a beloved and caring Mayor who deeply believes in the supremacy of the people and strict gun control, and concealed carry permits don’t exist in the State of Illinois. So I just don’t understand what this newspaper is talking about. Chicago is a gun-free paradise on Earth where everyone is happy and nobody ever dies. Except the Cubs. Oh, yeah, and the Bears, White Sox, Blackhawks and Bulls, but at least they have the decency to wait until the playoffs.
Gun ownership restrictions reduce crime? For fuck’s sake, even Canadian newspapers don’t believe that shite any more. A Vancouver, BC paper just editorialized that Canadian legislators should look to the US and see that more guns equal LESS crime, not more.
To control freaks, the right to own a gun means that we have the right to keep one unloaded, locked, and disassembled flintlock at police headquarters–until it’s decided to take away even that much.
“Roger that. So WTF are they talking about? I’m seeing this from a pro-gun position, but doesn’t that admission completely undermine the Sun Times’ entire argument?”
You are expecting logic and reasoning where only emotion exists, colored by the appearance of rationality.
“Studies show that the more guns in the home, the more likely there are to be suicides by gun, accidental shootings by — and of — children, and domestic arguments that end with somebody being shot to death. One important 1998 study found that guns in the home were four times more likely to be used in accidents than in self-defense.
It’s sort of a tautology – of course you can’t have a gun accident in the home if the home is absolutely gun-free. Likewise you can’t use a gun to commit suicide if there are no guns around – and fortunately Chicago has no tall buildings, razor blades or sleeping pills, so really a gun is your only option if you want to off yourself. And it’s not like, say, Japan has a very low rate of gun ownership and a very high suicide rate.
But even as a tautology it fails due to poor writing – “more guns in the home” – what does that even mean? So if I only have one or two guns, then I won’t shoot wifey or myself, but once I have a complete set of Glocks, 17 through 37, then the urge to cap the spouse will become overwhelming?
Nah. What they mean is that if you have said collection of Glocks, it is very likely that one of them will decide to pull its’ own trigger.
“Studies show that the more guns in the home, the more likely there are to be suicides by gun”
What they’re STATING here is that a higher number of firearms in a home results in increased suicide risk, which is such an unbelievable statement that I can’t wrap my head around that type of sloppy journalism.
Well, if you owned every model Glock makes, your spouse might question how you’ve spent the family income. But it’s really the magic power of firearms. Get enough of them together, and they take over. Ever notice, for example, how you always want just one more?
How frigging cool would it be to have a complete set of Glocks!
Chicago proving opposite what Brady Campaign beleaves that safy city is one lots of gun control.
Click on the comments to the editorial in the paper–all three of them–and all three point out the stupidity of the position taken.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. I think if you were to look behind the numbers you find that the “accidents”, domestic shootings, etc, are proportional to the number of deliberate shootings in a particular group, e.g., in the ghetto when a guy comes home and finds his ‘ho in bed with his best friend he shoots her while in ‘burbs when either spouse comes home and finds his/her partner in bed with the neighbor they take out their iPhone and call their lawyer.
Risk is not spread evenly through the population.
No it is not.
The Redeye free rag, published by the Trib, says that from January 1, through May 31, 2012; a total of 208 people were homicide victims. Of that total, 158 were Bantu, and 48 were white and Hispanic (they were lumped together). I did a little research online, and found that of the 48 white and Hispanic victims, all but 10 of them had Hispanic surnames.
In other words, 94.2% of the homicide victims were Bantu (76%) or Hispanic (18.2%).
How is “regulating” responsible gun owners supposed to protect Chicagoans, when there is no illusion whatsoever that these regulations will stop crime?
I’ve always said that BAD legislation is worse than NO legislation. Gun control is bad legislation.
What great timing. There was a shooting on the Mag Mile last night. Yep, it’s a “gun problem” as in lawful citizens can’t carry them
I posted a rebuttal on their Facebook page, and I’m waiting for the death threats.
Oops, forgot to cut and paste my actual response to their FB page:
The ability to defend myself against those stronger and more ruthless than I. A sign that my elected government trusts its citizens. A complex tool that requires skill and discipline to use well.
I’m sure that most of you will feel differently. If I believed that the lion would lie down with the lamb and that ALL humans and all human governments can be trusted to remain good and peaceful, I might join you.
Until then I prefer to keep in mind that we’re all slightly evolved tribal omnivores, that many governments become authoritarian and corrupt, and that several percent of any human population are amoral sociopaths with no regard for my rights or security.
+ 1 Well said.
Greg Camp: “… But it’s really the magic power of firearms. Get enough of them together, and they take over. Ever notice, for example, how you always want just one more?”
Yes!! Last week I bought another one, and right now I even know how many I have! Is there a program to break this horrible addiction?
I’ve practiced “gun control” every time I’ve been to Chicago. I keep mine secured in my holster under my clothing, and it’s never been a problem.
Should Chicago be referred to as “the drug induced city”?
I saw online where the city collected some 5,500 guns in exchange for $ 100 gift cards, for each gun turned in.
So as the sheep dehorn themselves, Caesar and his minions laugh, and toss them crumbs. The sheep will be totally defenseless when the wolves come marauding.