charon
Member
The Chicago Brady Director has an interesting letter to the editor that I responded to (below). What's interesting is the lament over the challenges the antis are facing and their call to action
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-1115ledeletternov15,0,3297830.story
Here's my response:
A bit long and low on emotion and with too many facts for a pro 2nd piece, but we'll see what the Trib does.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-1115ledeletternov15,0,3297830.story
Here's my response:
I sympathize with the loss gun control lobbyist Thomas C. Vanden Berk suffered from a criminal using a firearm. Fortunately, the likelihood of being a victim of a homicide involving a firearm is fairly small (about 5 per 100,000 people) and even smaller than that (perhaps by 50 percent) if the victim is not involved in criminal activity as well. Notably less risk than that posed by alcohol or a variety of fairly common facets of daily life -- intense media coverage aside.
Vanden Berk states: "We also need to get the message out that sensible gun laws work for all citizens, including those who own guns for hunting or self-protection." Well, not according to The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, which found that such regulation is ineffective. The reason is simple: Criminals don't obey the law so such restrictions only impact the law abiding. Last time I checked we had a full ban on crack cocaine throughout the U.S. and all the countries on our borders. You can't even produce cocaine domestically. So how again is a firearm ban supposed to be more effective that the cocaine ban where criminal intent is concerned?
Vanden Berk also does the common song and dance against the "evil" NRA gun lobby. I can understand his frustrations. The NRA is well funded by its millions of members. People like me. We look around and don't see a firearm violence problem in our neighborhoods, the vast majority of neighborhoods in the state, country or even in cities like Chicago. There is no gun problem in many areas where gun ownership is far higher. No drive bys, no "disrespect" feuding, no killing someone for their athletic shoes. We support the NRA to keep emotional, knee jerk reactions to serious cultural and social problems from impacting our rights.
The anti 2nd Amendment forces, on the other hand, tend to lack the same grass roots power. Take away the Joyce Foundation money and George Soros' money, remove the cameras from Jesse Jackson's and Michael Phleger's soapboxes, ignore the big city mayors looking for a scapegoat for failed social policy and there isn't much of a gun control movement at all. The success the NRA enjoys involves both votes and the money its members raise to safeguard their rights. Most people just can't get that worked up over what is broadly a non issue in a country of 300 million people.
Anyone reading this who has lived in Chicago can tell you specifically which handful of neighborhoods have a violence problem. If guns were broadly the problem, not gangland culture, then that would not be the case. It's politically safer for Daley, Blagojevich and Jackson to blame the tool and not the culture, but it won't solve the problem.
A bit long and low on emotion and with too many facts for a pro 2nd piece, but we'll see what the Trib does.