Quote:
Originally Posted by CaberTosser
Perhaps their rate of violence is because they've voted for Democrat mayors ever since 1931 then? That article notes that Chicago's former ban was lifted by the Columbia vs Heller Supreme Court decision, but I think its OK to allow that it will take a while for the local culture to adapt to their new found access to means of self defence.
|
Chicago is also about 30miles from Gary Indiana which has always had much less restrictive gun laws. In fact 20% of the recovered guns used in a crime in Chicago were originally purchased in Indiana. 60% of the recovered guns were from states other than Illinois. Chicago’s effort to legislate guns away was always doomed to fail, imagine banning booze sales in Calgary but not Okotoks.
That leaves us with the question, why bother using Chicago as an example at all? Best case it’s a strawman, easily brushed aside by someone familiar with the facts. However it seems to me it’s also commonly employed as a dog whistle argument, the kind of thing your average Alt-right “ I’m not REALLY racist” dog would hear. I’m not saying you are doing that purposely or anything but you might want to ask yourself how something so easily debunked got to be a common talking point in the first place. Doesn’t make any sense to me.
If we want to fight for the moral high ground on this, and I think we should, it’s in our interest to advance the best argument we can. The Chicago example is not that.