Monday, August 27, 2012

Chicago Pols Should Listen To Their Constituents

The gun-grabbers don't listen to conservatives, the National Rifle Association, or even the United States Supreme Court. In their zeal to blame guns for the ever-increasing violence in Chicago, they don't even listen to their own constituents. The Democratic leaders and their liberal supporters still cling to their belief that if only guns were outlawed, the deaths in Chicago would magically cease. But the citizens of Chicago don't believe it anymore.

In a recent poll conducted by Illinois pollster Michael McKeon in Chicago, the locals blamed easy access to guns as the main cause of the spate of violent deaths by a whopping six percent. Yes, you read that right—six percent. Now there's a headline you're not going to see in the Chicago Tribune. Despite all the hype from former Mayor Richard M. Daley, current Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and the Rev. Jesse “Increase the Peace” Jackson, Chicagoans are still capable of separating the wheat from the chaff.

It is such an article of faith for politicians like Emanuel that guns are the cause of violence that he can't even be bothered with addressing the true underlying causes. He is too busy trying to keep the evil folks at Chick-fil-A from coming into town. Rahm: Stop talking and start listening. Here's what your electorate thinks about the accelerating murder-by-gun root causes (aren't Democrats supposed to be deeply concerned about root causes?):

20% blame gangs.
13% blame lack of parental guidance.
12% blame lack of economic opportunity.
8% blame it on the need for more police officers.
7% blame “young people having nothing to do.”
6% blame easy access to guns.
(the remaining 34% blamed various causes at a rate less than 6% or had no opinion)

Even if you add gangs (with guns) and young people (with guns) to guns (alone), you still have only 33% of the population of Chicago blaming guns for the murder rate. But 100% of Chicago Democratic politicians and liberals blame the guns rather than the people using them. Jesse Jackson correctly identifies most of the victims of the violence as black, but is somewhat silent on who most of the perpetrators are. It's easier to blame guns than admit most of the perpetrators are also black. Says Jackson: “Far more African-Americans are killed on our streets than on foreign battlefields. If a foreign foe took these lives, we would mobilize armies and armadas to stop them.” Like Emanuel, Jackson is ignoring the opinion of the 60% who think gun violence is a symptom, not a cause.

Let's get the racist element out of the racial calculation. The numbers in the urban war zones are largely African-American. But it's not from some innate black tendency toward violence. It is covered rather by the “root causes” that the Chicago citizens listed (37% of whom are African-American), and which are encouraged by Democratic/liberal policies—government-dependence, the disintegration of the black middle class and the black family unit, welfare incentives, ungodly high unemployment rates among black youth, and over-tolerance of misbehavior based on white guilt stemming from past racist policies.

The simple fact is that Chicago continues to have some of the toughest gun-ownership laws in the nation, and yet remains a leader in gun-related violence. Chicagoans have figured out that outlaws don't care about gun laws (or any laws, for that matter). More restrictive gun laws won't solve the problem in Chicago. Respect for law will. Enforcement of laws already legitimately on the books and in accord with the Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings is the strong right arm of respect for the law. As long as law-abiding citizens are restricted in their ownership of guns while outlaws are not, the violence in Chicago won't end. Chicagoans have figured that out. The Chicago politicians haven't.

18 comments:

Patriot said...

Guns have always been one of the most effective of weapons when it comes to taking human life.

But the fact of the matter is that it is the human who uses the gun that is doing the killing. This fact is borne out by your reflected poll results, LawHawk.

We all know the reason why guns are blamed is due to "rulers" who want to have a disarmed citizenry so they can "govern" us in the manner they feel we need to be led. They are smarter than us you know...they went to Harvard and Yale! "God help us if the citizenry (the armed sheep) ever rise up and overthrow US! The result would be anarchy and chaos without our guiding intelligence to tell the sheep how to live their lives!"

It is going to take some sort of event to have these idiots finally realize that we will never willingly disarm ourselves. Death Before Dishonor!

AndrewPrice said...

The gun issue isn't a logic issue for the left, it's an ideological issue. They don't like guns because guns represent freedom and keep the government honest.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
Chicago is an interesting place. I had an uncle who lived in Chicago. He was a devout Republican and through out his life he voted straight a Republican ticket. He passed away several years ago. I think he is still voting but now votes a straight Democrat ticket. ;)

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

You are right. The Chicagoans have figured it out. Except they haven't made the leap of logic to connect that the Chicago Politicians are keeping guns away law abiding citizens. Which then brings around the next logical step, get rid of the current crop of Chicago Politicians and replace them with people who respect the second amendment. The citizens haven't connected the dots to the typical Chicago Politician.

Chicago might be a place where they have to put a prison wall around and declare it off limits except to the likes of "Snake" Plissken.

LawHawkRFD said...

Patriot: They're probably already aware we won't surrender our guns willingly. I think they still live in a dream world where they can just take them, forcefully and against our will if necessary. This latest dance with the UN and the small arms treaty is another example of their delusional thinking.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Well said.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: At this rate, you may very well be right about needing just to seal off the city from civilization. Within the last couple of days, two gun deaths have occurred within a few blocks of Barack Obama's summer palace. I doubt he'll be moving back there after he is kicked out of the Executive Mansion in DC. But like his friends, he'll make a killing when he sells the property.

rlaWTX said...

I don't know that libs really, honestly believe that taking guns away would be a bloody mess. I think that they think that those crazies in militias will cause a fuss, but I doubt that they realize that when it comes to it "ordinary" people would respond with a resounding NO.

Several reasons:
*libs think that they are smarter than everyone else and they truly expect others to realize their superior intellect if they just explained it in small enough words.
*other countries have turned over their guns without revolution (Great Britain, Australia) so it should work here.
*Americans tend to go along with things that they say they don't agree with (TSA, Obamacare) because it's the law, so once the libs get it passed accordingly, we're bound to just go along.
*libs underestimate the sentiment of people who don't own guns (like me) but who are intensely pro-2nd Amendment. If we don't have a gun, what will we care?

They are continually surprised when an "obvious" solution is rejected by We the People (think Chick-fil-a Day or Obamacare).

I'm sure that there are many who do understand the repercussions and don't give a flying flip, but I think many would be truly surprised.

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: The liberals on this issue, as with most issues, simply don't understand the Constitution or American freedom. The Second Amendment and protection of the right to keep and bear arms is a rarity anywhere in the Western world. Switzerland is one of the few European nations which understands the need for an armed citizenry. Also, liberals really don't understand people like you who don't own a weapon but believe in the right of others to do so. The idea of protecting the freedom of others when there would be no direct gain or loss for you personally mystifies them.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: It is well-known that death is a major factor in conversion to the Democratic Party. LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

Over the weekend since I wrote the article, nine more people were murdered in the gun violence in Chicago and another twenty-eight wounded. If I were mayor, I'd declare an emergency and bring in the National Guard. Rahmbo calls in Louis Farrakhan instead.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
Reference the liberal loonies. We have enough youth could there possibly be a fountain of smart?

StanH said...

Not to be cliché, but what the Hell, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” That says it all.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: If only there were.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: And the ever-popular "support the right to arm bears." LOL

LL said...

If they really want to thin out the gangs, simply arm the population. It sounds trite, but it worked in Florida.

LawHawkRFD said...

LL: The city and the people have to work together for that to work. Clearly, there's a disconnect between the government of the city of Chicago and a substantial percentage of the population. How did that program work in Florida? I'm unfamiliar with it.

Individualist said...

Knives said...

No, Lawhawk we must ban the guns so that we have an opportunity to kill more people!!!!

Post a Comment