Chicago Tribune Editor Fires Back
Not everyone in the mainstream media is apparently upset by the SCOTUS ruling it seems. Steve Chapman from The Chicago Tribune actually wrote an editorial that we can get behind. He sums the situation regarding the ruling better than most:
“Whose judgment about the value of guns to law-abiding citizens do you trust? Ordinary people defending their homes against criminals? Or a public official who is shepherded to work each day by police officers?”
Very well said Steve, very well said.
Chicago Tribune Sees the Light on Chicago Gun Ban
The lines are clearly being drawn in the war over guns in the Windy City, and this week The Chicago Tribune‘s Steve Chapman fired back at Mayor Richard Daley. This comes after an elderly man shot and killed an armed intruder. As the Tribune blog post noted, “having a handgun ready may have saved their lives.”
The Tribune further sums it best with this sentiment:
“It might be nice to live in a society without guns and gun violence. But that’s not an option. So the question is: Would you rather live in a city where a violent criminal can break into a house with no fear of encountering a resident with a pistol? Or a city where the criminal has to worry that any homeowner may have deadly force at hand? I’ll bet the neighbors of the 80-year-old man would prefer the latter.”
What more could we say?
Chicago Tribune/AP Article Shows True Colors of Politicos in Chicago
The Associated Press polled some canidates for the upcoming U.S. Senate race in Illinios. It shows a great lack of understanding from some Democratic candidates, but the worst response seems to have been from Alexi Giannoulias:
“No one needs a semiautomatic weapon on the streets of Chicago, and no convicted felons or domestic abusers need a weapon anywhere in Illinois.”
What exactly does he mean by “semiautomatic?” This is a major problem, as candidates such as Giannoulias throw around terms loosely to scare the public. Does this mean no semi-automatic hunting rifles? No .22 target pistols? And what does “on the streets,” mean? Too often “on the streets” translates into “anywhere in the city.”
Detroit Latest City to Hold Firearms Buyback
The state of Michigan has probably been hit as hard as anywhere by the global economic crisis, a.k.a. the recession, and the city of Detroit is the latest to hold a gun buyback. The problem we see is that the buyback offers a mere $20 for each firearm. How many rare and valuable items will be essentially sold for $20 when these items could have fetched far more money for the owner?
The Detroit News ran this piece that offered this insight:
“‘Getting unwanted and unused guns out of homes can help prevent unnecessary or accidental shootings that can occur when these firearms are left unsecured,’ Police Chief Warren Evans said.”
With all due respect, is there any proof that getting “unused guns” out of a home will prevent accidental shootings? If the firearm is unused, as in not regularly taken out, doesn’t that mean that it could just as easily remain there? And wouldn’t trigger locks, and safe storage also provide accidental shootings?
The Detroit Free Press ran its own story that further offered some interesting information:
“Participants can get $20 for each gun that is turned in. There is no limit to how many guns each person can turn in; however, funds will cover only the first 75 that are turned in, police said.”
So let’s get this straight. The city only has $1500 for this program. That’s sort of a why bother? That means the most the city can hope for then is that residents show up, find out there isn’t even the $20 and will decide to simply hand over their guns for free. Incredible. Talk about the worst type of bait and switch this holiday season.
Even The Chicago Tribune weighed in on this one:
“Police Chief Warren Evans says by ‘getting unwanted and unused guns out of homes,’ accidental and unnecessary shootings can be prevented. Removing guns from city streets also is part of ongoing police enforcement efforts.”
Was it such a slow news day that The Chicago Tribune had to weigh in on a happening in Detroit? And more importantly, where did the Chicago paper get the added insight that removing guns from the streets was part of the effort by the Detroit PD? If this was the case wouldn’t the hometown papers pick up on this? Maybe the Chicago paper wanted to suggest that these buybacks are about “getting guns off the street,” something that we’ve never seen solid proof regarding, and given that Chicago has its own gun buybacks, maybe this is just a reminder to the residents. But from the words spoken by the Chief, it sounds like this is more getting guns out of the home instead.
