Monday, October 15, 2018 — It was a relatively quiet weekend in Chicago, recently. Only nine people were shot on Saturday and eleven on Sunday. Of those, two died of their wounds. The Windy City is, of course, home to many great restaurants, some fantastic museums, and also to much of America’s gun violence.
It is a basic truth that a disproportionate amount of gun crime occurs in places where restrictions on gun ownership are most severe. Large cities such as Chicago, New York City, and Washington usually have a reputation for increased—if not rampant—crime, and the majority of sprawling metropolises are controlled by Democrat politicians, virtually all of whom insist on disarming the residents of their crumbling urban empire.
It shouldn’t be news to anyone that virtually all mass shootings in America occur in so-called “gun-free” zones. Obviously, these zones are not always 100% free of guns.
When gun owners and those defending basic civil rights point these things out, gun control proponents are quick to jump in and claim things like, “But New York’s gun crime is due to loose gun laws outside of the city! Those are guns from somewhere else!” Of course, the next thing out of their mouth is a demand for these places outside of the city to strengthen restrictions on gun ownership.
We have to admit that the point about the guns being from somewhere else is, usually, a fact. Of course, many of the guns used by criminals in Chicago are from somewhere else. They’d have to be, wouldn’t they? It’s extremely difficult to own a gun in Chicago, and the strict gun laws mean that gun shops aren’t exactly thriving along the Magnificent Mile.
But the argument that, since so many guns used in Chicago crimes originate outside of Chicago, gun laws everywhere else need to be strengthened just don’t make sense. If the cause of gun crime in Chicago was the easy access to guns outside Chicago, wouldn’t all those places with easy access to guns be at least as crime-ridden, if not more violent, than Chicago? It can’t be the ease of access that facilitates gun crime, or Smalltown, Kansas, and Anywhere, Montana, would be far more violent than the shores of Lake Michigan.
Really, if you think that gun laws actually have a significant effect on gun crime, don’t you have to think that it’s Chicago’s gun laws that are so dangerous? If Chicago’s gun laws are more restrictive than the rest of Illinois, and gun crime in Chicago is worse than it is in the rest of Illinois, why are people in Chicago demanding that the rest of Illinois change its gun laws to match Chicago’s? It just isn’t logical.
A few weeks ago, nearly 400 guns were seized by the ATF near Chicago. The guns had been stolen from a UPS facility in Memphis, Tennessee. Reportedly, the guns were mostly .22-caliber and .380-caliber handguns. The pistols were part of a larger shipment from the Ruger factory in North Carolina and headed for Texas. A U-Haul truck containing the guns was found in a Walgreens parking lot in Midlothian, part of Cook Country, Illinois. One suspect was apprehended and another escaped, at least for now. (Update: The second suspect has since been arrested. Ed.)
Why would these alleged gun thieves, both Chicago-area residents, steal hundreds of guns from Memphis and bring them back to Chicago? To sell them, of course. To make money off of Chicago’s tough gun restrictions. And, in doing so, contribute to that city’s deadly gun crime epidemic. Not to mention the crime of stealing them from UPS in Memphis to begin with.
As we know, gun ownership restrictions only restrict gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. The people we don’t need to worry about. The people we want to be able to count on if we need to. Gun control only helps criminals, and it’s usually criminals with guns who benefit the most. They know that they’re in a target-rich environment, a gun-free zone where their illegal gun gives them power that good people don’t have access to. Yet gun owners are told that it’s the gun laws everywhere else that make Chicago so violent.