Search
Home  |   About  |   Q & A  |   Archives  |   Credits  |   Contact  |  
« Selwyn Davis and What’s Wrong with the Death Penalty in Texas
Illegal Immigrant Sweeps to Increase in Houston »

More Americans Die in Gun Fights in Chicago than in Iraq

Over a 17-hour period this weekend, more American’s were shot and killed in Chicago then in the last 20 days in Iraq.

You know, where we’re fighting a war. I’m waiting for Harry Reid to proclaim that we’ve lost the war in Chicago, too.

CHICAGO (CBS) ― A violent and deadly weekend continues in Chicago. At least 12 people have been shot, two of them killed, since Saturday morning. This comes after at least 20 people were shot, four of them killed, from Friday night through early Saturday.

The irony is that Chicago — thanks in large part to Barack Obama — has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Which, as we all know, only restricts the legal ownership of guns by responsible, law-abiding citizens.

Oddly enough, the various thugs and gangsters around Chicago haven’t been deterred from illegally obtaining guns.

And what do police blame for the recent spat of shootings? Do they blame the failed democratic policies of Chicago which have failed generation after generation of inner-city minorities? Do they blame the continued demise of the nuclear family resulting in more and more children growing up without the parental guidance of their fathers? Do they even blame the thugs and gangsters themselves for the shootings?

Nope.

They blame the heat. I shit you not:

Chicago police are now stepping up patrols in areas that they call “hot zones.” Police blame the warmer temperatures for the spike in violence.

Maybe if we had free universal air conditioning these kids wouldn’t have to shoot each other?

_______

From a comment at Rachil Lukis‘ blog:

Chicago has a violence problem because they have a culture problem - a culture that doesn’t value education, parenting, or personal responsibility. When you have generations of people raised without morals or values, you will have violence - with or without guns.

sdf

Posted by Robbie Cooper on Sunday, April 20th, 2008 | Trackback |

10 Responses to “More Americans Die in Gun Fights in Chicago than in Iraq”

Withdraw Now!…

From Chicago! After all, it looks like it is more dangerous to be an American in Barack Obama’s hometown than it is to be an American in Iraq. (H/T Urban Grounds) A violent and deadly weekend continues in Chicago. At……

Left by Rhymes With Right on April 20th, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Four killed? That’s all?
Then Chicago really is a liberal paradise. They should aspire to be more like the darlings of Pelosi and her minions, that are aiding the President of Venezuela, Mini-Me, as he creates a pure Marxist paradise, where 77 people were murdered last weekend.

Caracas is more dangerous than Baghdad

April 15 - During the last weekend, a total of 77 persons were murdered in Caracas.

From Friday to Saturday, 26 people were murdered; another 25 from Saturday to Sunday and 26 more from Sunday until Monday morning, which thank God signaled the end of the weekend and also the bloodshed.

This was just an average weekend. Nothing special was going on.

The population of Caracas is 4.7 million, including neighboring cities around the Capital District.

Venezuela is not at war. No one has invaded it. These are Venezuelans gangs and crooks killing innocent Venezuelans.

Baghdad has a population of 7 million, almost twice as many as Caracas. It is a nation at war.

Still, you have a better chance of surviving in Baghdad, than in Hugo Chavez’s Caracas.

Why is there so much violence in an oil country when there should be enough money for everyone, now that the barrel of oil is selling for $113?

Because Chavez has not tried to eliminate the rampant poverty in the country; because he keeps spending billions of dollars to “defend” the country from an “imperialist” invasion that will never come, instead of training and arming a professional police force to deal with the violence and because the police is as corrupt as the rest of the government and participate in many of these murders themselves.

Welcome to the Socialism of the XXI Century.

Source.

Left by no2liberals on April 20th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

You’re 24.19 times more likely to be killed in Iraq as in Chicago.

[Editor --- I'll take my chances in Iraq, where at least you're allowed to (legally) own a gun with which you're allowed to defend yourself. Not so in Chicago.]

Left by Preston on April 20th, 2008 at 9:32 pm

Hmm… if I were to come up with a bet that I was 24 times more likely to win could we arrange a wager?

Incidentally, considering the prevalence of gang/drug related violence and it’s correlation with gun ownership I wouldn’t be surprised if a disproportionate of the murder victims in Chicago had a gun in their possession.

[Editor --- I'll bet you're right about the number of victims who had a gun, too. I'd also bet there was a disproportionate number of illegally owned guns, too. In fact, I'll bet the number of legally owned and licensed guns is much closer to 0 than it is to 1.]

Left by Preston on April 21st, 2008 at 6:49 am

I’ll bet you’re right about the number of victims who had a gun, too.

Doesn’t that cast doubt on the notion that we could defend ourselves better if only we were legally able to carry weapons everywhere?

Left by Preston on April 21st, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Doesn’t that cast doubt on the notion that we could defend ourselves better if only we were legally able to carry weapons everywhere?

What an odd thing to say?

[Editor --- I thought so too. In fact, I really didn't even know how to respond to it, it was so off-the-wall and 180 degrees from what I was pointing out.]

Left by no2liberals on April 21st, 2008 at 10:25 pm

What’s so confusing?

Key to your argument for why there should be fewer (no?) gun laws is that we’d be safer if criminals were uncertain whether potential victims were carrying weapons.

I simply believe you vastly overestimate the capacity of individuals to use a gun in self defense. For instance these two guys probably both thought a gun would protect them. They were both wrong:

2 killed each other in Monday shootout in Newark
by Jonathan Schuppe/The Star-Ledger
Tuesday April 22, 2008, 1:30 PM

Two 18 year old men killed each other in a shootout in Newark’s Vailsburg section on Monday night, police said today.

The 11 p.m. gunfight erupted on Smith Street, where one of the men fired at the other, who was sitting outside a house, a law enforcement official said. The victim was struck in the leg and apparently returned fire, fatally shooting his assailant in the head, the official said.

The first victim then ran but collapsed around the corner on Salem Street bleeding profusely from a severed femoral artery, the official said. He died soon afterward.

The circumstances of the shootout are still under investigation, police said. One of the guns was recovered at the scene by detectives, Police Director Garry McCarthy said.

Left by Preston on April 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 am

Two 18 year old men

That’s the key…gang-bangers!
It is unlawful to legally purchase a handgun if you are under 21.
We’ve gone over this many times, Preston, but you either don’t remember or chose not to. On average, 2.5million times each year, a citizen defends their person, family, or property, from a criminal attack.
If some gang-bangers/drug dealers want to kill each other, society is better off.

Left by no2liberals on April 23rd, 2008 at 7:55 pm

What’s the difference if their guns were illegal or legal- they failed to protect their lives.

That, as you know, is my point.

[Editor --- Actually we both just made an assumption that the victims were armed, too (whether it be legally or not). All we do know is that the suspects did have guns.]

Left by Preston on April 23rd, 2008 at 10:14 pm

So that is your point!
Mine is that lawful armed citizens protect themselves, their families, and property by a much larger margin with a gun, than there are crimes committed with them.
Even for those two 18yoa crime victims, at least the one that was shot first was able to return fire, and ultimately kill the one who killed him. Had he not been in possession of a gun, the other would have been a murderer on the loose.

The Dallas Morning News, Dallas, Texas, 7/5/07
State: TX
American Rifleman Issue: 10/1/2007
A man was sitting in his vehicle while his wife shopped for groceries. To his horror, three men burst into the store with a gun, appeared to fire and began robbing customers. The man called 9-1-1, then received a call from his wife. “I just heard her saying, `There is nothing in my purse,’” he recollects. “And there was a `pow.’ The phone went dead.” The man, a concealed-handgun license holder, sprang from his vehicle and entered the store with his .45-caliber pistol. He hoped to avoid confronting the bandits, but police say that was not to be. One of the robbers pointed a gun at the man, and he responded by firing two shots at the suspect, injuring him as his accomplices fled. Neither the man’s wife nor any others were harmed. “I was just worried about my wife,” the man said, noting he took no satisfaction in shooting the suspect. “I just wanted to get her out of there.”

Armed Citizen.

Left by no2liberals on April 24th, 2008 at 9:03 am

Got something you want to say?

Quicktags:


Notes:

You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.

If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.

Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.

And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.