Close all the gun shops!

posted at 10:01 am on January 25, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

By now you may have heard that a federal judge has overturned yet another Chicago gun ban, requiring Mayor Rahm Emanuel to allow gun shops to open in the next six months. While this may seem like common sense and good news to defenders of the Second Amendment, not everyone was happy with it. One such pundit is a guy who I somehow wind up reading nearly every week on one topic or another, LZ Granderson of ESPN and CNN, among other venues. While I rarely, if ever, agree with him, he does frequently at least make the effort to acknowledge that other points of view exist.

Following the judge’s decision, LZ launched into his own analysis of what he clearly feels is a “complicated” issue. He opens with a typical, tragic story of people being gunned down in the Windy City and then gets to the meat of the issue.

Of the 1,375 guns used in crimes between 2008 to 2012, one in five was legally purchased from one shop about 20 miles outside of the city. Also, a Chicago Police Department report found that 30% of the 17,230 guns recovered between January 1, 2008, and March 31, 2012, were bought in Cook County, where Chicago is located. Many more were bought elsewhere in Illinois. And nearly 60% of those guns were bought outside Illinois, in states with weaker gun laws, such as Indiana and Mississippi.

The guns aren’t always legally purchased by individuals with clean records and then illegally sold to criminals. Sometimes the gun shops are burglarized. In 2012 thieves broke into a store in a northwest suburb using a sledgehammer and took 200 guns. That year, 501 people were shot to death in Chicago.

It is disingenuous for gun rights advocates to dismiss the effectiveness of a city’s gun ban without acknowledging that guns are coming into the city from other areas, including the suburbs, making it easy for criminals to game the system. But the onus is still on pro gun-control politicians — like Emanuel, like San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo — to make an airtight case against what many see as infringement on the Second Amendment.

And fair or not, people being shot and killed in cities with tough gun laws on the books does not help their case.

In a way, I’d love to get on the phone and interview LZ about this column because I’m genuinely confused. It clearly seems to be an opus in favor of allowing Chicago to ban gun shops, but as he makes his case, Granderson seems to shoot down each and every one of his own arguments as he goes. (And for what it’s worth, this seems to be a common theme among those who attempt to argue in favor of gun bans.)

He points out that one in five of guns found to be used in the commission of crimes were all bought at one gun shop outside the city. But in nearly the same breath he notes that more than half of the guns (60%) came from outside the state. So precisely what is the rationale being provided to ban gun shops in Chicago if criminals will simply have them brought in from elsewhere? Once again we see a law which proves essentially useless in deterring criminals and only serves to prevent – or at least make it more difficult for – law abiding gun owners to make a purchase. And those aren’t the people you’re ostensibly trying to stop.

He also makes the argument that apparently the gun shops themselves are dangerous because sometimes they are robbed by criminals. In fact, he closes his argument by pointing out that the Mayor may have to “endanger” even more people by moving the gun shops to more affluent, lower crime areas of Chicago.

To complicate matters, now Emanuel — the man known as “Mayor 1%” for his tendency to spend more time with deep pocket types than community organizers — is going to have to survey the city’s 77 communities and decide in which parts of the city, gun businesses can set up shop

Neighborhoods in the west and south — like the one Baker was murdered in — tend to be lower income, crime-ridden and predominantly minority areas. And black support for the mayor is shrinking. Neighborhoods in the north — where many of his six-figure salary donors live — have lower crime, higher wealth and are predominantly white.

Just when he thought keeping residents safe was hard enough now — because gun shops will draw the attention of criminals — he has to decide which ones may potentially become less so.

I simply don’t understand the argument that gun shops should be banned because criminals attempt to rob them. Pharmacies are robbed every day in this country and the stolen drugs frequently wind up on the streets. Should we ban pharmacies? Or does it perhaps make more sense to suggest that gun shops in Chicago (along with every other commercial enterprise) could do with more police protection, enforcement of current laws and suppression of the criminal element?

Very little of this gun rights debate offering makes any sense. But perhaps the source isn’t quite as unbiased and open to both sides of the debate as he portrays himself. After all, this is apparently the same person who chose to defend the President over the “if you like your health plan” debacle by saying, hey… every president is going to lie to you.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

He points out that one in five of guns found to be used in the commission of crimes were all bought at one gun shop outside the city. But in nearly the same breath he notes that more than half of the guns (60%) came from outside the state. So precisely what is the rationale being provided to ban gun shops in Chicago if criminals will simply have them brought in from elsewhere?

uhhh…let me help you out there jazz.

if 40% of guns used were bought in the city, then a gun ban would’ve eliminated those 40% of gun crimes.

so just because a gun ban won’t eliminate 100%, doesn’t mean the law won’t be effective.

quite simple really. don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM

ESPN writers don’t cover sports well, so I’m supposed to listen to them talk about the 2nd amendment?

celtic warrior on January 25, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Clearly, Chicago gun shops are racist.

/

Khun Joe on January 25, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Morning AP.

wolly4321 on January 25, 2014 at 10:13 AM

if 40% of guns used were bought in the city, then a gun ban would’ve eliminated those 40% of gun crimes.

so just because a gun ban won’t eliminate 100%, doesn’t mean the law won’t be effective.

quite simple really. don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Thats just dumb.

Mimzey on January 25, 2014 at 10:15 AM

1) Require every single mother in the City of Chicago to attend an NRA gun safety course, plus any additional training that they might desire, including use of a gun range.

2) Give every single mother in the City of Chicago the firearm of their choice plus ammunition at city expense.

3) Tell every single mother in the City of Chicago to defend their children to the death from the threats that they are faced with every single day.

4) Watch crime plummet.

Of course, the reason that the city fathers do not want citizens to have guns has nothing to do with wanting the citizens to be safe. It has everything to do with disenfranchising them and holding them hostage to the criminal political regime.

turfmann on January 25, 2014 at 10:16 AM

It is disingenuous for gun rights advocates to dismiss the effectiveness of a city’s gun ban without acknowledging that guns are coming into the city from other areas, including the suburbs, making it easy for criminals to game the system.

Not sure I follow the logic. What purpose would it serve to acknowledge that guns are coming into the city from other areas? So what. There are a myriad of reasons why gun control is not effective. Banning guns and forcing people to obtain them elsewhere is just one of the reasons.

Sounds like his solution by implication is to have the tail wag the dog. Since Chicago can’t handle their gun problem with strict gun control laws, they want all surrounding areas to ban the sale of guns also so they can fix their problem. Criminals will just go further to get their guns. Maybe to the border where the ATF will arrange a purchase.

iamsaved on January 25, 2014 at 10:17 AM

if 40% of guns used were bought in the city, then a gun ban would’ve eliminated those 40% of gun crimes.

so just because a gun ban won’t eliminate 100%, doesn’t mean the law won’t be effective.

quite simple really. don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.

So if they ban car dealerships in the city, 40% of the people won’t buy cars.

Right?

GarandFan on January 25, 2014 at 10:20 AM

uhhh…let me help you out there jazz.

if 40% of guns used were bought in the city, then a gun ban would’ve eliminated those 40% of gun crimes.

so just because a gun ban won’t eliminate 100%, doesn’t mean the law won’t be effective.

quite simple really. don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Riiight. Because the gangbangers are too stupid to go somewhere else to get a gun from an illegal source.

Are you saying that black thugs are stupid, partisan?

Sounds rather racist to me.

Why do you hate black people, partisan?

Solaratov on January 25, 2014 at 10:21 AM

if 40% of guns used were bought in the city, then a gun ban would’ve eliminated those 40% of gun crimes. nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Uh, no genius, they just woulda been bought somewhere else.

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM

So if they ban car dealerships in the city, 40% of the people won’t buy cars.

Right?

GarandFan on January 25, 2014 at 10:20 AM

will cars be illegal? if so, then yeah.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Solaratov on January 25, 2014 at 10:21 AM

it’s revealing that thugs are automatically black to you…

*sigh*

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM

it’s revealing that thugs are automatically black to you… *sigh* nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM

He mentioned black thugs instead of other kinds, not that all thugs are black.

This is the kind of cognitive deficiency that causes people to swallow socialism.

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 10:30 AM

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM

The faux Harvard grad is against self protection in one’s own home from intruders armed with a gun.

Extremists like her are why liberals keep losing this battle. Thank you for all that you do for us.

Chuck Schick on January 25, 2014 at 10:30 AM

I’ve always assumed t(h)ugs were from India . Shame on me . Shame shame shame .

EnglishRogue on January 25, 2014 at 10:30 AM

The logical end result is to abolish retail sales of firearms, period, in all parts of the United States. The Second Amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms, not to engage in retail sale of same.

Before anyone accuses me of channeling Dick Metcalf, that’s called a reductio ad absurdem argument; taking the proposal before the house to the ultimate extreme. Except, in this case, it would be the only way it would actually work.

Except that it wouldn’t, because firearms will always be available. Why?

Because governments want and need them. Mainly to control their own populace(s).

As long as they exist, they will find their way into criminal hands. Period.

The only hands that such measures keep them out of are those of law-abiding citizens. The fact that so many on the “progressive” side continue to advocate Draconian bans tells me that they really don’t care about armed criminals- they just want total control of law-abiding citizens. Who seem to terrify them for some reason.

Since law-abiding citizens, by definition, don’t hurt other people, the only possible reasons I can think of for progressives to want them disarmed are;

1. Progressives have a visceral hatred of, and revulsion for, guns. Considering how many loathe technology, period, this is a likely explanation- except it doesn’t explain the number of progressives who want armed bodyguards for their own protection while denying self-protection to others.

2. Progressives object to firearms as a “symbol” of individualism. Since they are all about “collectivism”, this is more probable, but still not entirely persuasive.

3. Progressives are personally terrified of anyone who has a gun. That is, they think “every gun is pointed at me“. There’s a word for this; it’s called “paranoia”, clinically speaking, and is evidence of mental imbalance.

4. Progressives fear that an armed populace may at some point resist their efforts to “make the world…right”. This is a higher-weighted probability, as progressives think anyone who disagrees with them is stupid, bigoted, etc., anyway, and historically speaking, progressives have always been a bit too fond of using force to get their way for anyone else’s peace of mind.

5. Progressives see criminals as “victims of society”, and see guns in civilian hands as interfering with legitimate redress of grievances. This would be consistent with progressive behavior in he judiciary, legislature, and pop psychology.

Then of course there’s the other possibility;

6. Progressives just don’t like people, and dream of the day when they can exterminate anyone they don’t like with no fear of resistance or consequences.

Having been raised in a family of same (registered Democrats all), I consider this to be the single most likely explanation. They mistrusted government- unless people like them were running it. In that case, they wanted no limit on what government could do to anyone they didn’t like.

They saw an armed citizenry as an affront to that “philosophy”.

I look at modern day progressives (including those trolling here) and I see the same mentality at work.

Now you know why I’m not a “progressive”.

(I’m not a conservative, either, but that, as Conan’s chronicler said, is another story…)

clear ether

eon

eon on January 25, 2014 at 10:32 AM

And if pot is legal in Colorado….

potheads in Chicago are shitte out of luck…

Winning!!!!
/

Electrongod on January 25, 2014 at 10:34 AM

I simply don’t understand the argument that gun shops should be banned because criminals attempt to rob them. Pharmacies are robbed every day in this country and the stolen drugs frequently wind up on the streets. Should we ban pharmacies?

What exactly is it, that you don’t understand? The Neighborhoods in the north — where many of his six-figure salary donors live, that would vote for Rahm, (especially in Chicago proper) are exactly like the slave owners of the old South, they were Democrats as well you know.

whbates on January 25, 2014 at 10:34 AM

I’ve always assumed t(h)ugs were from India . Shame on me . Shame shame shame . EnglishRogue on January 25, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Speaking of which: “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest,” -Ghandi.

Because, you know, it left many people defenseless against the Thugees.

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 10:35 AM

this is not a debate: countries with strict gun laws have less gun deaths than US

its a fact.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun,” -Dalai Lama.

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Ban bathtubs, they kill more people, everyone can take a shower…

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:37 AM

it’s revealing that thugs are automatically black to you…

*sigh*

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Reading comprehension failure. Go back to the article and re-read the segments about areas in the city and their crime rates in relation to their ethnic demographics.
Then review the FBI uniform crime statistics.
His comment was essentially correct even if it was not comprehensive.

mad scientist on January 25, 2014 at 10:38 AM

If you ban bathtubs, only criminals will have bathtubs…

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:38 AM

If a shotgun is good enough to Jill Biden, it should be good enough for everyone…

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:39 AM

this is not a debate: countries with strict gun laws have less gun deaths than US its a fact. nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Wow.

The former Soviet Union’s extremely stringent gun controls, successfully implemented and enforced by a police state, did not keep the nation, and successor states like Russia, from posting murder rates from 1965-1999 that far outstripped the rest of the developed world [sources: Kates and Mauser; Kessler; Pridemore; Pridemore]. The killers in question did not obtain illegal firearms — they simply employed other weapons [source: Kleck].

In the 1960s and early 1970s, murders committed by Soviet citizens — again, almost entirely without guns — equaled or surpassed the lives taken violently in the gun-saturated United States. By the early 1990s, the murder rate in Russia trebled the American rate, which had by then leveled off, then dropped significantly (more on that later) [sources: Kates and Mauser; Pridemore; Pridemore].

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 10:40 AM

I guess he doesn’t understand that banning guns in a city leaves the population open to attack less than the possibility that criminals may get them anyway.

HiJack on January 25, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Two words: Straw purchasers.

southsideironworks on January 25, 2014 at 10:41 AM

will cars be illegal? if so, then yeah.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Because criminals are afraid of breaking the law. Right?

Fenris on January 25, 2014 at 10:42 AM

if 40% of guns used were bought in the city, then a gun ban would’ve eliminated those 40% of gun crimes.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Uhhhhh, uhhhh that’s hilariously simple. You’re an idiot. Top 5….be proud.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 10:42 AM

it’s revealing that thugs are automatically black to you…

*sigh*

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Your comment is revealing that someone didn’t read the whole story. Silly lib

Paco on January 25, 2014 at 10:42 AM

this is not a debate: countries states with strict gun laws have less higher gun deaths than US other states

its a fact.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:43 AM

if 40% of guns used were bought in the city, then a gun ban would’ve eliminated those 40% of gun crimes.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Uhhhhh, uhhhh that’s hilariously simple. You’re an idiot. Top 5….be proud.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 10:42 AM

It’s simple math…

all sales of guns in the city are involved in gun violence..

Simple/

Electrongod on January 25, 2014 at 10:44 AM

quite simple really. don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM

I’ll remember that the next time some pro-choicer starts flapping their gums about “back-alley abortions.” LOLOL

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:46 AM

this is not a debate: countries with strict gun laws have less gun deaths than US

its a fact.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM

And their people are subjects, not citizens. GFY you gun grabbing POS!

Doomsday on January 25, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Myth #3: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries

Copiously footnoted.

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 10:46 AM

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM

We worry about the U.S., not the rest of the world, I am sure China has fewer per capita gun deaths than the U.S…do you really think that is because of our 2nd Amendment?

Comparing other countries is foolish…let’s look at states, cities…

How about the most robust state economies, have the lowest gun fatalities…and the most robust happen to be governed by…Republican’s.

Your argument than would be, and thank you, that states would be better off being run by Republican’s…

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:47 AM

If one in five guns are bought legally, that means four in five guns are illegally possessed by criminals. So legal law-abiding citizens are outgunned four to one. It seems to me that people would have a better chance of stopping gun crime if more law abiding citizens were allowed to have gune.

RebeccaH on January 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM

“After a shooting spree, they always want to take guns away from people who didn’t do it,” -Wm. Burroughs.

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM

people rob banks so we better close them too.
pharmacies? better close all them too.

dmacleo on January 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM

if 40% of guns used were bought in the city, then a gun ban would’ve eliminated those 40% of gun crimes.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Keep posting, you are F’in brilliant…a statistical savant…

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Nonpartisan, Nonpartisan, please pick up the white courtesy phone. Nonpartisan.

Yo dude. I think John Lott wants to have a word with you about gun violence and statistical correlation

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM

if 40% of guns used were bought in the city, then a gun ban would’ve eliminated those 40% of gun crimes.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Keep posting, you are F’in brilliant…a statistical savant…

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Cause one gun can only be used in one crime before it has to be discarded, right? ROFLMMFAO

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:49 AM

RebeccaH on January 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM

This debate has no room for logic…nonpartisan on January 25,

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:49 AM

will cars be illegal? if so, then yeah.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Proving your stupidity post after post.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Cause one gun can only be used in one crime before it has to be discarded, right? ROFLMMFAO

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Of course, statistics show that they are “poor” therefore can only afford one bullet…

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:51 AM

I saw a movie where only the police and military had guns. It was called Schindler’s List.

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Your argument than would be, and thank you, that states would be better off being run by Republican’s…

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Last year I was at a pro-gun rally at Idaho’s state capital.

And most everyone there had their rifles and/or side arm with them..

And there wasn’t a thug amongst us..

Se we were safe..:)

Electrongod on January 25, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Two words: Straw purchasers.

southsideironworks on January 25, 2014 at 10:41 AM

One Amendment.

The Second.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Let’s just cut to the chase. I’ve lived in and around Chicago my entire life. Reminder: it’s the most racially segregated big city in America and also one of the most “Progressive.”

In a nutshell, northsiders are -petrified- of southsiders being able to legally concealed carry. It makes no difference if the southsiders are law-abiding citizens. The northsiders are simply not comfortable with the thought of it. It’s disgusting and sad.

visions on January 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

“One man with a gun can control a hundred without guns,” -Lenin.

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Let’s just cut to the chase. I’ve lived in and around Chicago my entire life. Reminder: it’s the most racially segregated big city in America and also one of the most “Progressive.”

In a nutshell, northsiders are -petrified- of southsiders being able to legally concealed carry. It makes no difference if the southsiders are law-abiding citizens. The northsiders are simply not comfortable with the thought of it. It’s disgusting and sad.

visions on January 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Fear + public police = cowardice

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:53 AM

The underlying issue isn’t guns. Its criminals and Chicago is full of them. If a gun wasn’t around when they want to kill someone that wouldn’t stop them. And why do you have so many criminals? You can thank liberals and progressives for the destruction of the family. Abortion at will, single mother family and you can’t say the word God, reap what you sow.

phatfawzi on January 25, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Fear + public policy = cowardice

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:53 AM

FIFM

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:54 AM

*sigh*

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Drama queen pansy.

Solaratov on January 25, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Hey, where’d noncerebralan go?

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Speaking of which: “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest,” -Ghandi.

Because, you know, it left many people defenseless against the Thugees.

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Ah, but the t(h)ugs made lovely carpets! They gifted one to Queen Victoria .

this is not a debate: countries with strict gun laws have less gun deaths than US

its a fact.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM

So you’re quibbling about the method, not the act?

EnglishRogue on January 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM

this is not a debate: countries with strict gun laws have less gun deaths than US

its a fact.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM

They have far less population also. Their deaths didn’t go down. They might have had a smaller decrease in gun deaths, but murder rates stayed the same. Are you saying murder by gun is a different death than murder by knife? Are they not still dead?

I will also into out a book, that is if you can read, called More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott Jr. He destroys your stats that you have swallowed on the throne of liberalism. My guess is you won’t read this book because you fear your false narrative will be destroyed. You strike me as a coward. Prove me wrong, liberal.

Conservative4Ever on January 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM

This guy’s a genius. Gun bans don’t work so let’s ban guns and close gun shops.

darwin on January 25, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Geez Hot Air. You had an 800 comment QOTD this morning. You don’t need to release the sock puppets on top of that. FCOL!

22044 on January 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

LZ should have stayed with sports commentary.

22044 on January 25, 2014 at 10:59 AM

uhhh…let me help you out there jazz.

if 40% of guns used were bought in the city, then a gun ban would’ve eliminated those 40% of gun crimes.

so just because a gun ban won’t eliminate 100%, doesn’t mean the law won’t be effective.

quite simple really. don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM

You are ignorant and simple-minded and blinded by your own prejudices, that is becoming clearer with each post you make. But on a brighter note, at least you bring some comic relief to the more sensible people who visit this site.

zoyclem on January 25, 2014 at 10:59 AM

this is not a debate: countries with strict gun laws have less gun deaths than US

its a fact.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Let’s take your logic to another area. You are theorizing that if guns were banned everywhere around Chicago that gun crimes would decrease dramatically? I wonder if all drugs like cocaine, heroin were banned everywhere would that make drug overdoses disappear?

Conservative4Ever on January 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM

its a fact.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM

But do they have lower murder/suicide rates?

No.

It’s a fact.

Solaratov on January 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Geez Hot Air. You had an 800 comment QOTD this morning. You don’t need to release the sock puppets on top of that. FCOL!

22044 on January 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Speaking of sock puppets, Hawkdriver hasn’t been around in a while to accuse me of being one. I miss you, Hawky! <3

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Ban bathtubs, they kill more people, everyone can take a shower…

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Nope. Sorry. Slips and falls.

Too dangerous.

Solaratov on January 25, 2014 at 11:02 AM

“One man with a gun can control a hundred without guns,” -Lenin.

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

The perfect quote…just ask anyone raised in the projects.

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 11:03 AM

uhhh…let me help you out there jazz.

if 40% of guns used were bought in the city, then a gun ban would’ve eliminated those 40% of gun crimes.

so just because a gun ban won’t eliminate 100%, doesn’t mean the law won’t be effective.

quite simple really. don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM

What a blindingly stupid statement. Perhaps you’re not a sentient being.

darwin on January 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Nope. Sorry. Slips and falls.

Too dangerous.

Solaratov on January 25, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Great, now I am accused of promoting murder…at least that is how a liberal would define it.

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Speaking of sock puppets, Hawkdriver hasn’t been around in a while to accuse me of being one. I miss you, Hawky! <3

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM

:)

22044 on January 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM

What a blindingly stupid statement. Perhaps you’re not a sentient being.

darwin on January 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM

I dunno. Are liberals sentient?

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM

it’s revealing that thugs are automatically black to you…

*sigh*

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Nonpartisan often harps on the race issue, and whenever the subject comes up, projects his/her own fears and bigotry onto others. This person is no more than a hypocrite, bigot, and delusional ignoramus…plain and simple.

zoyclem on January 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM

I dunno. Are liberals sentient?

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM

There seems to be growing evidence they’re not.

darwin on January 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Leading story on Fox News….

Deadly blasts, violent clashes mark anniversary of Egypt uprising

I guess the thugs in Egypt don’t use guns…
They use bombs…

Electrongod on January 25, 2014 at 11:08 AM

“It is disingenuous for gun rights advocates to dismiss the effectiveness of a city’s gun ban without acknowledging that guns are coming into the city from other areas, including the suburbs, making it easy for criminals to game the system.”

This statement by LZ confirms that people kill people and not guns.
The crime crime rate should be relatively equal where the guns were
purchased.

lilium479 on January 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014

To steal a line from your twin sister Bedbug:

‘It’s legal. Deal with it.’

BTW not only are guns legal the laws are changing in a manner much more in line with those of us who love freedom and cherish the ability to protect ourselves from your brethren.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Hey, where’d noncerebralan go?

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Harvard Law called him…told him to shut up and stop making them look bad…and stop lying about having gone there.

Solaratov on January 25, 2014 at 11:16 AM

it’s revealing that thugs are automatically black to you…

*sigh*

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Really? Did you read his mind? You’re a person of many talents.

Now back to reality: When will you post anything that would support your contention that your IQ is higher than 77?

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 11:16 AM

if 40% of guns used were bought in the city, then a gun ban would’ve eliminated those 40% of gun crimes.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Keep posting, you are F’in brilliant…a statistical savant…

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Cause one gun can only be used in one crime before it has to be discarded, right? ROFLMMFAO

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Well of course! They’re like magazines: disposable!

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 25, 2014 at 11:34 AM

this is not a debate: countries with strict gun laws have less gun deaths than US

its a fact.

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM

It’s also a “fact” that the one creation of human beings that has murdered far more people in just the last 150 years than have all wars in human history is… not guns.

It is government. Governments that became too big, too powerful and too controlling have murdered hundreds of millions of mostly their own people ‘for the greater good’.

Regardless of our political party, government is not a friend to the people.

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
-– George Washington

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
– Thomas Jefferson

– James Madison, Federalist Paper #46:
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

“The total population of the US must outnumber the standing army by a ratio of 100:1, or, the armed citizens must outnumber the standing army by 25:1. The reason; so that we, the people (are the government), and remain as a deterrent to a corrupt or tyrannical elected government.”

DrDeano on January 25, 2014 at 11:38 AM

DrDeano on January 25, 2014 at 11:38 AM

government is also essential…without government there’d be chaos

guns are not essential

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Everyone seems to just glide right past this statement:

To complicate matters, now Emanuel — the man known as “Mayor 1%” for his tendency to spend more time with deep pocket types than community organizers — is going to have to survey the city’s 77 communities and decide in which parts of the city, gun businesses can set up shop.

Sounds like an equal protection violation to me.

But you have to appreciate the irony of demanding other cities and areas prevent guns from being sold — and then being forced to choose in which neighborhoods of the city to set up gun shops.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 25, 2014 at 11:45 AM

government is also essential…without government there’d be chaos

guns are not essential

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

The simple one strikes again.

See the 2nd Amendment. Deal with it.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

government is also essential…without government there’d be chaos

guns are not essential

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Yeah I can explicitly remember all that death and carnage that went on in Belgium when they had a Government shut down .

Oh wait, I guess no one died because they don’t have guns .

EnglishRogue on January 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM

government is also essential…without government there’d be chaos

guns are not essential

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

So we can take away guns from the government/military/police?

Hmmm tell me how that works./

Don’t bother you’re dumber than boat load of bricks.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM

government is also essential…without government there’d be chaos

guns are not essential

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

What part of “shall not be infringed” escapes you, simpleton?

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM

government is also essential…without government there’d be chaos. I would know, because my Democrat Party in charge hasn’t passed a Federal Budget in 5 years.

guns are not essential-the sole purpose of signal flare guns is to kill people, not save lives.

nonintelligent on January 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on January 25, 2014 at 11:50 AM

government is also essential…without government there’d be chaos

guns are not essential

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

When do you plan on disarming the cops and military?

Bishop on January 25, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Ban bathtubs, they kill more people, everyone can take a shower…

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Thats a good point. In countries with fewer bathtubs there are fewer deaths from bathtubs! Next non-part will point to Borneo for a model country. There are practically zero deaths caused by electricity, auto accidents and falls from ladders. We could learn a lot from them!

Mimzey on January 25, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Oh, come now, people! Of course ‘thug’ is a reference to poor, disadvantaged black folks. And pretty soon, we’ll have to come up with another code word.

You white people understand.

Wink wink ;)

Lanceman on January 25, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Cause one gun can only be used in one crime before it has to be discarded, right? ROFLMMFAO

gryphon202 on January 25, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Well of course! They’re like magazines: disposable!

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 25, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Oof! Those rejoinders hurt me a little bit just reading them.

Bishop on January 25, 2014 at 11:52 AM

government is also essential…without government there’d be chaos

guns are not essential

nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

So we can take away guns from the government/military/police?

Hmmm tell me how that works./

Don’t bother you’re dumber than boat load of bricks cannibalistic rats!.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Get with the times brother!
/

VegasRick on January 25, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Oh, come now, people! Of course ‘thug’ is a reference to poor, disadvantaged black folks. And pretty soon, we’ll have to come up with another code word.

You white people understand.

Wink wink ;)

Lanceman on January 25, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Actually, the original Thugs were…Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee

Squirrel!

Del Dolemonte on January 25, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Ban bathtubs, they kill more people, everyone can take a shower…

right2bright on January 25, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Showers and baths are potential breeding grounds for legionnaires disease. We must ban baths and showers.

EnglishRogue on January 25, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Police: Several Injured After Shooting In Columbia Mall (Howard County, MD)

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/01/25/police-investigate-reports-of-shooting-in-columbia-mall/

And yes, this mall is a gun-free zone.

Del Dolemonte on January 25, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Del Dolemonte on January 25, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Yeah. Thanks, Del. Here I am attempting to get a reaction and you wrecked it!

A+!

Lanceman on January 25, 2014 at 11:58 AM

The left searches for words like “thug” to divert the conversation and to destroy people.

Macaca!!

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 25, 2014 at 11:58 AM

guns are not essential nonpartisan on January 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Smarter men than you have strongly disagreed.

“We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?” -Stalin, with whom you agree.

Akzed on January 25, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Actually, the original Thugs were…Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee

Squirrel!

Del Dolemonte on January 25, 2014 at 11:55 AM

You should check out Mike Dash’s book ‘Thug’ . It’s a fascinating period of history (and a very bloody one at that) .

EnglishRogue on January 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM

It’s OK though, Del. Since nonparisian is not a real troll anyway, I think I was wasting time. I’m just bored.

I hope neither libdie or verbie saw that attempt, though. It needs to look sincere next time I try it.

Lanceman on January 25, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2