Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Chicago's What War?

A WND columnist calls it a "race war," a sharp uptick in black-on-white attacks in downtown Chicago.

Yeah, sure; except the label gives zero real insight into "why," other than The Other is usually easier to maltreat, which is like predicting the Sun will rise in the east.

I would suggest something else. You see, in every case -- and as required by Illinois law and Windy City ordinance -- the victims were unarmed. If you were a hoodlum picking victims in Chicago, what kind of demographic predictions would you make about who would be most likely to not illegally carry a gun? Especially if you or your violently-inclined pals were?

Fix the damn laws over there, get a leaven of law-abiding folks legally armed, and watch the stats start to match the rest of the country. --Don't expect an outbreak of peace and brotherly love, but as the risks of attempting to stomp some innocent into the pavement go up, the number of attacks will decline.

Who knows, there might even be a loser or two decide strong-arming is a lousy career choice, and try honest work instead.

7 comments:

Carl-Bear said...

"Who knows, there might even be a loser or two decide strong-arming is a lousy career choice, and try honest work instead."

More likely they just go into [formal] politics: far more lucrative, and virtually zero physical risk.

Anonymous said...

Yup. Enough bangers suffer a catastrofic failure of the victim selection process, the.stats will start trending downward.....sometimes, a little vigilantism is usefull. JohninMd(help!)

Roberta X said...

Don't mistake legitimate self-defense for vigilantism, John!

Carl, that brings us right back to the problem of trying to limit the harm politicians can do, while still enjoying fine titles and perqs enough to keep the rotten critters occupied.... At least they'd have to stand for election every now and then, a process that (with primaries and 2+n races in the general election) inevitably and delightfully enough, results in more losses than wins.

I strongly suspect the fed.gov was intended from the beginning to be a kind of short bus to special school for the politically-inclined, a place to send them to do busywork and stay out of trouble. Alas, they subverted the institution in short order.

Joe in PNG said...

If I may be a bit cynical, the Chicago city machine depends on the class likely to be shot in self defense. If you allow those who won't vote for you to shoot those who do vote for you (even in self defense), then the whole thing falls apart.

docjim505 said...

DODGE CITY! BLOOD IN THE STREETS! VIGILANTE JUSTICE! TRAYVON MARTIN! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

/sarc

I realize that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that there really are some people who don't need to be allowed to pack heat (or drive a car... or breed), but the idea that we must disarm people - virtually criminalize self-defense - makes absolutely no sense. It's always struck me, too, that it is a form of prior restraint, which I thought was a no-no in our legal tradition.

Meh.

Anyway, I won't worry about it: the Chicago bigshots, safe with their bodyguards and gated communities and armored limos, will not be changing the laws any time soon. Allow the proles to defend themselves??? Who knows where THAT could lead!

Anonymous said...

Surely something would make the trayvons think twice--I don't see how the current state of chaos can be allowed to persist.

Mike James

paulinmordor said...

As a lifelong resident (48 years) of Mordor I sincerely doubt I will see any CCW legislation passed in my lifetime. As long as we have the Daley family/Madigan family/useful idiot republican troika in place CCW will never happen.