Chicago is the poster child for the failure of anti-gun laws. But the Chicago situation is also the necessary end result of the current trend in liberal political circles: to restrict or deny guns as much as possible, without regard for Constitutional rights or common sense. Chicago is in a situation which many gun control proponents wish to apply to more cities, states, and eventually the entire nation. And I don’t see that trend changing any time soon. We are in for the long haul, in fighting against the infringement and denial of our 2A rights.
Take a look at this article over at USConcealedCarry.com — Chicago: The Poster Child for Failed Gun Control.
“Chicago recently announced their firearm-related crime figures for 2012 – more than 2500 shootings and at least 513 homicides (we say ‘at least’ because some of the victims haven’t died yet). Remember that this is in a city with among the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.”
Strict gun control does not reduce violent crime, murder, or gun-crime. The criminals have guns. There will never be enough armed police officers to guard every location. Therefore, citizens need guns.
But it gets worse. The anti-gun sentiment is moving in the direction of depriving some police officers of firearms. Chicago police officers are the primary LEOs for the two major airports in Chicago. At neither are they allowed to carry a firearm while on duty! What if a criminal or terrorist starts shooting up a Chicago airport? The police responsible for the security of the airport have been instructed to run away and hide: Guidance to unarmed aviation police: Run and hide.
Essentially, this is the implied instruction to all law-abiding citizens from the anti-gun crowd: run and hide. This rejection of the right to bear arms is not only unconstitutional, it is also contrary to the fundamental right to self-defense. And to extend this fear of guns to police officers is utter nonsense. Criminals will always have guns. Therefore, police and many law-abiding citizens need guns. Otherwise, the whole nation will end up like Chicago: over-run by criminals and a skyrocketing murder rate.
By contrast, the Chief of Police in Detroit, James Craig, favors the ownership and carry of guns by citizens. “If you’re a terrorist, or a carjacker, you want unarmed citizens.” It makes the task of the criminal and the terrorist much easier, if they can count on an absence of firearms among the citizens they assault or kill. “If you look at what happened in Paris, I’m not saying if more citizens had had guns it would have stopped the terrorists,” Craig says. “But it sure might have helped.”
Do you know what also would have helped in Paris? If every police officer carried a firearm, not just some of them. Mark my words. It will not be long before this practice of disarming the police spreads to other localities in the U.S. First, they will try to disarm retired LEOs and off-duty LEOs. Then they will restrict the carry of firearms by some police officers on duty. At the same time, they will continue to try to infringe and deny the right to bear arms to as many citizens as possible. Restrictions, regulations, and costs will continue to increase, making it ever harder to own a gun for self-defense.
If more citizens do not join the fight for gun rights, we will end up like the populations in Europe: a disarmed citizenry, with no gun rights, no practical way to defend ourselves, and a police force that doesn’t always carry.