About Mayor Daley

A letter to The Dome reads as follows:

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.

The Ridiculous Tenacity of the Pro-Gun Position

In his latest Examiner article, Kurt Hofmann exemplifies the ridiculous tenacity of the pro-gun activists. Their rules of engagement include, never backing down and never admitting you're wrong. When something is said which the opposition challenges, they meet it with forceful advancement.

Instead of admitting that Mayor Daley's remark was not really a threat and calling it that was a simple rhetorical trick on his part, which I suggested, Kurt, always true to form, stuck to his guns.

The "mayor's comments" referred to above would be Daley's proposal to put a bayonet tipped rifle "up [the] butt" of a reporter who had the temerity to ask if Chicago's handgun ban could be said to be effective, given the consistent carnage there.

Repeating the word "proposal" several times in the new article seems to be the new way to distort the mayor's comments, while supporting his original question: "Is Chicago's Mayor Daley guilty of 'terroristic threats'?"

What's your opinion? Is Kurt one of those stubborn guys who can never admit when they're wrong? Is it reasonable to you that during a press conference, while being video taped, Mayor Daley really threatened to harm someone? On the other hand, do you think someone making a call to the mayor from California, might have been serious?

I think it was clear from the very beginning that the mayor did not threaten anyone. I don't think the California caller was so obviously innocent, at least not at the beginning. Yet, at this point, extraditing him to Chicago and making an example out of him is just a foolish as insisting the mayor was guilty of 'terroristic threats'.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.