Journal Shakrai's Journal: Chicago v. Self Defense 8
By Jeremy Lott on RCP:
Talk about your inconvenient truth. Five days after Chicago Mayor Richard Daley had held a press conference touting the benefits of the city's handgun ban by brandishing a rifle with a bayonet and -- I swear I am not making this up -- cracking a joke about shoving it up a reporter's bum, an 80-year-old man on the West Side of Chicago traded gunfire with a burglar, killing the intruder.
For advocates of gun control, the optics on this story are just awful. It's nearly impossible to drum up any sympathy for the deceased, Anthony Nelson, who had a long history of drug and weapons convictions and was on probation. He attempted to break into the house, brought a gun with him, and fired twice at the so-far unnamed homeowner.
Conversely, it is impossible to fault the homeowner. The man who killed Nelson was a veteran of the Korean War. He fired only one shot and got the intruder in the chest. On that morning, the man was protecting not just himself but his wife and a 12-year-old great grandson who was staying over. A son told reporters "My father had no choice. It was him or the other guy."
Rest of the piece can be found here. Let's not forget that our current President hails from the Windy City and doubtless agrees with Mayor Daley on at least some level regarding firearms.
Do more guns mean safer society? (Score:2)
The owner/operator sleeping inside the cab fired on the men when they were already gaining entry to the cab. So he shot one, and the other ran off.
I think most reasonable people can agree what he did was justified. After all they not only were breaki
Re: (Score:1)
There are countless cases of automobile abuse. We haven't banned them yet. Being a 1st world country is irrelevant. I still have the right to self-defense. A gun is the best way to exercise that right. For some people (females, the physically weak/handicapped, etc.) it may be the only way to effectively exercise that right. Most females stand little chance in a physical confrontation against a male. Put a firearm in her hands and the balance of power is suddenly much more even. Ditto for the elderly
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not against carrying "weapons" (a
Re: (Score:1)
Well, "military grade" assault weapons are already illegal for the most part. Assault weapons bans target semi-automatic rifles that are rarely used in crime. I don't happen to agree with banning either one though.
Re: (Score:2)
Most females stand little chance in a physical confrontation against a male.
I see you've never seen some of the corn-fed macho broads here in Springfield! Ruthie, the bartender at Felber's, put her first husband in the hospital she beat him so bad. Charlie beat off six men, one of them a cop (and she's only about five foot five).
I'd rather take on a six foot five inch tall 200 pound man here than most of the women. Plus, a lot of them are armed.
Re: (Score:1)
Chicago? - Police union business, and next year is election time.. I can hear the old man, "That's my boy". Make a father proud..
Daley is the pope... the most-ut in machine politics.. And Obama was just the man to take the act on the road..
Re: (Score:2)
Your question is irrelevant.
Does free speech mean safer society? What about freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure?
Yes, guns almost surely make us safer, but even if they didn't, it wouldn't -- in any way -- negatively impact my right to keep and bear arms. The correct answer is "liberty."
Re: (Score:1)
So what's the correct answer for today's society?
Whereever did you get the idea that it's about what's "correct" for today's society?