Home » Blogs » Supt. McCarthy: “Chicago Does Not Have Strict Gun Laws”

Supt. McCarthy: “Chicago Does Not Have Strict Gun Laws”

Dan Zimmerman - comments No comments

Windy City PD Superintendant Garry McCarthy has it all figured out. Finally. He’s looked at his city’s murder rate and discovering that it’s higher than New York, a city with three times the population. His boys have confiscated 109 illegal guns since January 1. Garry’s also apparently been combing through the FBI’s uniform crime reports because he’s found that — shazam! — gangs, drugs and illegal guns are intertwined. I know, right? This is evidently why The Godfather pays him the big bucks. Garry has that unique ability to peer through the miasma of chaos that parts of Chicago has become and he’s put his finger right…on…the…problem. But wait! He has a solution, too . . .

McCarthy just held a press conference to announce that the fix to Chicago’s gun crime problem is mandatory minimum sentences. That’s right, he wants to make sure that anyone caught with an illegal gun (which is pretty much all of them as far as he’s concerned) goes away and stays away.

Then he showed a couple of poster boards with mug shots. On one were a series of murderers who’d committed their crimes with illegal guns. On the other were victims of those crimes, criminals themselves. His point: If the shooters had been put away, the people on the other board would still be alive.

But he didn’t stop there. The victims were criminals, too. And he wanted to make it clear that if they’d been kept behind bars, too, they’d have been much safer than they were out on the streets. So the powers that be in The City of Big Shoulders seem to have come to the conclusion that, given their Mogadishu-like crime problem, Chicagoans would be safer behind bars than free to stroll the avenues.

Finally, the top cop had a plea for the media. He asked them (paraphrasing here) not to adopt the talking points of gun rights organizations when referring to his city. In his exact words, “Chicago does not have strict gun laws.” And given what’s been enacted in New York, not to mention what’s in the works in Minnesota, California, Colorado, Maryland and others, he may soon be right. Relatively speaking.

0 thoughts on “Supt. McCarthy: “Chicago Does Not Have Strict Gun Laws””

  1. This is different from the Vietnam conflict’s “mad minute” in what ways? Soldiers blow it out in various ways, in not always the smartest manner. Even being a soldier is often not the wisest career choice. But they’re having a good time; nothing much of note to see here.

    Reply
  2. ref. 2nd Amendment

    “The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions”
    — Daniel Webster

    Reply
  3. In 6 months this’ll all blow over and it’ll be business as usual. All this “The sky is falling!” is just yet one more ploy so government can say one of two things:
    “We tried to do something”
    “We stoped them from doing something”
    I’m not saying it’ll be easy to deal with. Hell, I live in New York State with THIS guy in charge : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwOGjtxWC-4&lc=3tcF5e_bDiz2BNxQMzHgzzvST6_0vVgqMnEl5onJj48
    So BELIEVE me when I say the Courts will just shoot all these new laws down faster then a skeet shooter does clays. Just calm down, write a few letters, talk to people on Social Media, but don’t panic.

    Reply
  4. How is his situation relevant? He was shot by one of the “elite (police)” who are the only ones supposedly able to safely own guns. While the officer was violating most of the cardinal rules of gun safety. Yep, we need to get the guns out of the hands of these irresponsible “civilians”.

    Reply
  5. Clarksville, TN has an industrial part already in place with roads and power grid. Lower property taxes (especially for businesses bringing jobs) No state income tax. 5th fastest growing city in country. Move here Magpul. Its gun friendly and a good standard of living

    Reply
  6. McCarthy is a newer, dumber and more dangerous version of Bull Connor. I’m surprised that he didn’t blame Chicago’s hideous murder rate on “outside agitators.” Oh, wait. He did. ‘Cause all the guns come from out of state. I’m sure that it won’t be long before we hear McCarthy use the N-word. Oh, wait, he did. Next thing you know, he’ll be threatening to shoot legal CCW carriers. Oh, wait. He did.

    And the hits just keep on coming.

    Reply
  7. I personally use a Leatherwood/Hi-Lux CMR. This scope had all of the wonderful things as the Leupold and other scopes, combined. Also at a much cheaper price. Though the scope may be a little “cluttered” on the recticle, I love that it has marks for BDC from 100-900 meters, though it is calibrated for a 62gr(which I prefer). You also have the MIL measurements. The lighted recticle is nice and works well in even the lowest of light conditions. The zoom is a true 1x making it useful for a red dot style sight as well.
    http://swfa.com/Leatherwood-1-4×24-CMR-Tactical-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P45852.aspx

    Reply
  8. Please write an email to the above mentioned gov officials stating that they are stopping a company from operating in their state. We must become a squeaky wheel.

    Reply
  9. Hey, most stock AR triggers have a bunch of creep. It doesn’t stop them from being used in military, civilian, and LE applications. It is, arguably, more of an issue in a handgun. I’m not defending the trigger, just thinking out loud. All my ARs – work guns included – have creepy single stage triggers.

    The SR45 does not seem to be a superior gun, on paper, than the Glock 21 SF. 13 rounds of .45, relatively decent accuracy, and stone cold reliability are a tough combination to beat. It is, however, better looking. Please don’t compare Glocks to Rosie O’Donnel. Glocks are not *that* ugly, and they have a certain utilitarian charm. Not so much for Rosie O.

    Reply
  10. Maybe I missed it but did you mention Leupold’s lifetime warranty? Besides the innovation and great quality to cost ratio, the warranty and customer service makes Leupold a bargain.

    Reply
  11. I do notice the whole AWB is gone now. I bet Obama will give lip service to it but I find that most gun grabbers say they background checks now shows DiFis bill has great press and Obama speeches but has little support in congress.

    Reply
  12. I have 2 daughters that love to shoot. When we go to the range, I always leave with blisters on my thumbs. I can’t load ’em fast enough.

    Reply
  13. Someone needs to pen a dark science-fiction post-apocalypse book called ‘Escape from Chicago’. A sequel can be called: ‘Rahm Warlord of the Great Lakes’.

    Reply
  14. OK, so I just started skimming over this, and I will read the whole thing in detail, but I’ve only gotten to page 3 and I already have a problem. This thing reads like it’s written by the freaky paranoid gun nut that the CDM wants to portray all of us as. In that way, I’m sorry, but you’re not helping.

    On the very first two pages, titled “Preparedness,” you talk about not attracting attention, dressing to blend in, etc. I dress how I dress, and that varies based on the environment and activity I’m involved in. I am not the “gray man,” because I’m just a guy. I’m not a spy, I’m not involved in espionage and intrigue, and I’m not trying to not be noticed. Then you go on to talk about how flipflops might be comfortable, but I should “wear shoes that will enable you to run.” I live in Orlando, and I spend upwards of 90% of my time either barefoot or in flipflops. It’s ludicrous to expect that I would suddenly start wearing “runnable” shoes simply so that I’m prepared for a black-swan event that I will likely never encounter. I’m specifically referring to a mass shooting, because that’s the point of view from which you wrote this.

    Many of your other suggestions are clearly correct, like “carry your gun” and “be aware of your environment,” but drastically changing your entire style of dress and manner of living simply so that you (think you) can be prepared for a completely random and very, very (very) rare occurrence is an unreasonable level of paranoia. I carry a gun, I practice, I get training, I practice some more, but man, if you actually give legitimate consideration to your choice of footwear for a trip to the mall based on whether or not you’ll be able to run if a statistically nonexistent shooting breaks out… then dude, I don’t want to live in your world, or your head.

    Reply
  15. One aspect of the proposed insurance requirement that has received little notice so far is that under existing California law, insurance does not cover the insured against intentional acts. See e.g. California Insurance Code Section 533. This then undermines the stated rationale for requiring firearm insurance: that it would compensate the victims of so-called gun violence. Except in cases of negligent discharge, insurers would be under no obligation to pay out on a claim, and even then, the insurers would do their best to characterize every instance of gun use as intentional, so as to never pay out at all. Thus, the net effect of this law would be to simply punish law abiding gun owners by forcing them to purchase ‘insurance’ that is, in fact, of little to no use.

    Reply

Leave a Comment