Wanting My Gun in Chicago
Last week, while on vacation, my wife and I went to a Blues Club in downtown Chicago. It was such a nice night outside and, although it was after midnight, we decided to walk back to the hotel which was several blocks away. There were a fair number of other people on the streets in most places, but you still could not help but be nervous for your safety. There were some young toughs roaming the streets too and we only saw one cop during our walk. So we quickened our pace. … but with my wife in her high heels - well, we were still moving pretty slowly.
We realized as we walked that we should have taken a taxi. While walking, one thought kept recurring in my head: I wish I had my gun. The freedom of self-defense is an essential human freedom - and I felt like I needed to be in a position to exercise that freedom if need be. Some would call this desire primitive, but sorry - I felt like we were vulnerable sheep available for the slaughter.
Having a concealed gun is a great equalizer. It gives you a fighting chance if someone (or a group) suddenly confronts you with a knife or gun or violence. Also, if more criminals who approached people to rob or mug them had to think twice that they might be packing guns - well what would the impact be on crime? Thus, people carrying guns likely contribute to a kind of collective self-defense by deterring criminals.
I guessed, but had never investigated, that Chicago was run by liberal gun-controllers like New York (… there is something about big cities that fosters the liberal-elitist mentality), and they would see gun control as the answer to reducing violent crime. On getting back from vacation, I found for example this piece on the status of gun rights in Chicago that confirmed it. I guess I would have gone to the slammer if I had been caught carrying a gun that night. What a load of crap.
I have learned since returning that Chicago is sometimes the murder capital of America. The police can’t possibly protect every street at all times. And since you aren’t allowed to carry a gun yourself - you are expected to play the role of the vulnerable sheep.
What if you asked the liberal leaders of Chicago: Why can’t I carry a gun for self-defense on the streets of Chicago at night since the streets are very dangerous?
The answer would be that you must sacrifice your freedom of self-defense, and your personal safety, for the greater good that gun control brings. In other words you may be sacrificed (as in robbed/mugged/raped/killed) to one of the great gods, in the pantheon of gods in liberal ideology: The Sacred God of Gun Control.
Never mind that gun control just does not appear to work (for some reason criminals aren’t much intimidated by gun control laws). In fact, evidence is leaning toward fewer gun restrictions reducing crime. … But ignore all this - just prepare yourself for being sacrificed on the alter of liberal ideology in the name of the greater good.
How gun-controllers can take away your freedom and safety, in the heart of the violent crime centers in modern, urban America (Chicago, New York, LA, Boston, …), is beyond me. Since there is not good evidence that gun control reduces crime, I guess that shows that it is very difficult to defeat liberal ideology with reason alone. You must win through the legislative process. Fortunately, this is happening. I bet a decade from now that I will be allowed to carry my gun in Chicago.
Update: Here is a Chicago-based blogsite that tracks gun freedom (er, I mean lack of) in Chicago.
Update2 (3/21/07): Someday the citizens of Chicago may get their guns right restored.
August 8th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Link Love
Bloggers, bloggers, bloggers. I love the bloggers (and certain non-bloggers, too)! I’m getting some strong link love today, and I want to spread it around. But before I get to the sites, I have a brief announcement.
Certain segments of the Young Am…
August 8th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
I hope you are right. It’s a shame that a honest citizen needs to be armed to feel safe walking the streets of his own city, but thanks to decades of revolving door prisons and soft judges and juries, you can’t count on crooks being locked up or deterred by the police. That leaves just you and the 45 behind your right hip.
BTW, every been to Kim du Toit’s website? I think you’d enjoy it.
http://www.kimdutoit.com/ee/index.php/rant/
August 8th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
“Let’s leave Chicago to the Eskimos…that town’s just a little to rugged for you and me, you bad girl…”
“I Love L.A.”, Randy Newman
August 8th, 2005 at 10:23 pm
“too rugged”, sorry, “to”=sic.
August 9th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Great! Glad to have found you - with a GUN CONTROL NUT LIKE DALEY honest GUN OWENERS in the Windy City have to do all we can and with the BLACK MUSLIMS now aligened with the ISLAMIC TERRORISTS WE NEED OUR HEAT MORE THAN EVER!
August 9th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
fortunately for everyone, the criminals that carry guns and other weapons are a very small group of people (yet still dangerous) what the libs don’t see is that this small minority is going to acquire a gun no matter what the laws say. making it harder for someone with a reason to get a gun is then a detriment to society as a whole. if someone is not allowed to protect themselves against thugs on the streets then ultimately the thugs and democrats win.
August 13th, 2005 at 8:51 am
There are a couple of economic pressures supporting gun control, in addition to liberal fuzzy thinking. First, criminals prefer their victims unarmed. Think any mob bosses in Chicago own any politicians? BTW, I have read that this was the impetus behind the first real gun control law in the North (there were lots of gun control laws adopted in the South during Reconstruction, to keep blacks from acquiring guns, but they were not enforced against whites.) The Sullivan Law, adopted in New York in 1911, it was intended to make life easier for the criminal elements in representative Sullivan’s district, who were facing more and more armed citizens resisting their depradations. OF course, it wasn’t sold that way.
Second, if only police can carry guns, then any private security company that needs to provide armed guards has to hire cops. If you permit non-law enforcement folks to carry guns, the natural monopoly of the police in this area is diluted. Think there are many security companies in the Chicago area? Think cops in Chicago have any political influence?
August 14th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Trained and licensed (with a “tan card”) security guards can carry guns, but only while they are being paid to protect someone else. They can’t carry off duty, exect on the way to and from work. I’m always glad to be protected by guys carrying guns who are getting paid $9/hr, which I’m sure attracts the most dedicated and highly trained employees.
If you want a gun in Chicago, you should just do what Da Mayor does and hire a platoon of armed bodyguards. Now you probably can’t get CPD to pay a few million a year to protect you, but Da Mayor claims that nobody in Daleyville needs a gun anyway.
Oh, and you can’t hire yourself to protect yourself. I know someone who checked that out.
I’d bet that in 10 years CA, IL and NJ/NY/MA will still not honor your permit and still won’t be Shall Issue.
August 16th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
How about your wife hiring you to protect her?
July 13th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
[...] This is the opposite of gun policies in New York City, Chicago, and Washington DC. These places are run by lefties who are behind the times, stuck in a 1960s time warp. [...]
August 5th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
[...] Over the last decade, the USA has been getting back to its roots of letting citizens be armed, in their homes and when away from home. The gun controllers are on the losing side … except for places like Chicago, New York City - places where people most need guns to defend themselves. [...]
August 11th, 2010 at 7:36 am
What you detect as “liberal elitist mentality” (an imaginary bogeyman to start with) in cities, is the entirely rational policy of gun control. Ask São Paulo, Brazil, which is safer than most major American cities having adopted sensible gun control.
Guns and cities don’t mix; and arguments about deterrence and defensive shooting are nothing more than bizarre, self contradictory nonsense.