Mayor Richard Daley’s retirement is not coming soon enough.
How many Chicagoans have been killed because of this gun-hating hypocrite, who has kept guns out of law-abiding Chicagoans’ hands? At the same time, he has 24-hour, around-the-clock armed guards keeping him safe.
Two questions arise.
1. When the author says "Chicagoans have been killed because" of gun laws, it seems he's referring to the poor defenseless folks who, disarmed against their wills, have fallen victim to criminal violence. Doesn't that overlook the deaths that would have happened had those folks been armed? Doesn't this go back to the old question of whether guns do more good than harm? Do legitimate DGUs outnumber incidents of gun violence?
2. When a political figure or celebrity uses armed security, does that constitute hypocrisy if that political figure or celebrity favors gun control?
What's your opinion? Is the author of the letter just another Daley hater or does he raise legitimate points?
Please leave a comment.
"When a political figure or celebrity uses armed security, does that constitute hypocrisy if that political figure or celebrity favors gun control?"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. How could you say it does not with a straight face?
FWM:
ReplyDeleteHow could you say it does not with a straight face?
Don't underestimate him, FWM--he has an amazing gift for saying ludicrous things, apparently in all seriousness.
Not to worry. Daley will be replaced by an equally tyrannical stooge. I've got my money on Rahm Emmanuel. He will ensure Chicagoans keep dying at their normal rate.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “Do legitimate DGUs outnumber incidents of gun violence?”
ReplyDeleteOf course not. The DGU has been practically illegal in Chicago. We are talking about a place that banned all handguns, banned all gun shops, and banned having long guns readily available for self-defense in the home. How does it help your cause to bring this up?
The average joe who works in the local manufacturing plant, in most cases will have no need of a gun. Owning one brings more dangers than it protects against.
ReplyDeleteA celebrity or controversial political figure who has stalkers and receives death threats, may very well need armed protection.
No hypocrisy there.
Because so many more celebrities than Average Joes are victims of violent crime.
ReplyDelete"Owning one brings more dangers than it protects against."
ReplyDeleteProof? Does owning a circular saw bring more dangers than it helps to have a handy tool for a particular job?
Seriously, circular saws could be misused, or used with negligence and cause great harm or death.
The tool because it can be dangerous if misused, is not an excuse to get rid of the tool. It is an excuse for educating one's self on proper safe use.
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteThe average joe who works in the local manufacturing plant, in most cases will have no need of a gun.
And why should anyone (including "Average Joe") have to justify their "need" to own anything?
The answer, very obviously, is that any justification of "need" is utterly superfluous. What you need to justify is your desire to violate Average Joe's fundamental human right to keep and bear arms.
It must suck to have such a need, given the utter impossibility of ever fulfilling it.