Daley Reloads

Nice post, Kevin.

I wish Daley would take as harsh a stance with the state legislation on funding the CTA as he does with gun control. But, taking a stance on the CTA is not sexy and doesn't sound as good on a campaign commercial.

Gun control at this level probably wouldn't be effective. I heard on the news that many of the kids that have been shot on the southside have been killed by high-school dropouts. Maybe the answer is improving CPS and quality of life so kids stay in school in the first place instead of on the streets shooting. But I guess that is also easier said than done.

Sparky: Maybe you could adopt all of the truants and high school dropouts and become a good parent to them. That's our problem here. I agree with the fact that the gun stance isn't the best, for then only criminals will have guns. Then again, some disenfranchised Asian can always get a gun legally, walk onto campus and light up 43 people. Point is, we need better parenting.

As if more gun control will really take guns out of the hands of criminals. What a joke.

And I agree about CTA funding. Why can't our mayor put his foot down about the routine absurdity facing CTA funding? Seriously, if recent news is any indicator, the CTA could go straight down the toilet in a heartbeat all because the state disregards the fact that probably more than 80% of the state's income comes from the city of Chicago (not exactly sure of the number, but I bet it's above 50% - if you have figures, please share).

I don't have all the facts, but have read enough to realize that the formulas the state uses for funding public transportation are flat out insane.

But I digress...

Everyone knows the real solution to the CTA's problems is to bring in a new private company and possible private funding (if anyone would want to fund the damn thing) and seperate it entirely from the city and state in terms of operation.

Woodlawn: There was an interesting article in The Economist a few weeks ago about marriage and child-rearing. They noted that there is a difference between how the best- and least-educated Americans approach marriage and child-rearing, implying that least educated Americans have have higher divorce rates and more single parents. They also note that: "children of single parents or broken families do worse in school, get worse jobs and go on to have children out of wedlock. This makes it more likely that those born near the top or the bottom will stay where they started." They are implying that there is a direct link between education and parenting. So, perhaps by improving education today, we will encourage better parenting for the next generation. Like I said, easier said than done.

But, keep in mind, better parenting may not have prevented VA Tech shooting. By all accounts I read, they were "good parents". We need more than "better parenting", we need better education.

Love or hate him, none of you would have moved here without the improvements he has made to the city. Still waiting to read Detroit-ist or STL-ist, but given their lack of strong mayoral leadership I think it will be a while.

Wow. Chicagoist is getting all neo-con! First ya get upset about a rich man having to share his money with his wife and now this?

Daley is fucked up for reasons having nothing to do with gun control or schools (which I think he actually has no control over). Maybe he should be working on both instead of just sticking his nose in the gun thing which takes less nuanced arguments than overhauling public ed.

I like Daley but he is all over the place. I wish he would just stick to fixing things with City Hall and the CTA. He has control over that not gun control.

I don't particularly object to city gun-control measures. However, if Daley wants to do something for the public safety that's well within his power to do, I suggest that he get his cops under control.

STL-ist might be interested to learn that a whole bunch of us have lived here since long before Ritchie was mayor. He's made some physical improvements, undoubtedly (which have cost about 300% of what they should have, and benefitted his friends), but no one moved here, or will ever move here, because of flower boxes in the middle of streets, or cows, or Navy Pier. These amenities don't matter if the cops are running amok, developers are looting the public treasury through TIF districts, and no one can get a liquor license or a zoning variance unless they hire the mayor's brothers. We have Ritchie to thank for Todd Stroger, too.

Sparky, most of the people who came over here at the turn of the 20th Century were uneducated, but they thrived because they had a stronger family base, along with parents that were together. I understand your point, even agree with it to an extent. But until you step out into the field on the South or West Sides, and see what a lot of these parents are like, you honestly have no idea. I know a lot aren't educated, but how do we fix that aside from exterminating parents and having you and I adopt their kids and making sure they feel loved and sending them to school. Do you see what I am getting at here? It's a huge problem, just like the gun issue - many many many questions. But how to fix?

For the rest, I just love this. It's all about Daley. If he said he was for the right to bear arms, you would call him a redneck. It's all the same around here: CTA, Police Brutality wah wah wah. When you have something new to say, something earth shattering, THEN SAY IT. Until then, you're skipping like a broken record. But unlike the broken record, you have no voting record. If I sound like Jesse Jackson that's because I want to annoy you just as bad as your constant bitching about Daley...Wait...Just say something new, okay? Move mountains kiddies.

Wood: Take your own advice about saying something new.

As well, one reason some of us bitch about Daley is because he does have so much power, not only in the city (near absolute) but in the county and state as well. Really. Certainly you know this. No one gets on the CTA board, for instance, without his thumbs-up. And, as we all saw, when wanted the Olympics, he just said what the hell, let's do it. That's power, too.

STL-ist: I moved here despite Daley, not because of him. In fact, I came from an area in Illinois that closely resembles the shit-hole that is Cook County, if not for size, then certainly corruption. Careers have a way of taking a person to many places. And if you think his strong leadership is the main reason Chicago is not as bad as Detriot or St. Louis, you are among the least aware students of history and economic geography I've ever come across.

As for the armed populace theory, I see guns as the very last line of defense against tyranny. Don't think tyranny can happen here? That's what a lot of people in civilized countries have thought as well.

Woodlawn: I have seen worked with those families on the South Side, as well as parts of the West Side. I witness the family dynamic first-hand on a very regular basis. I do not claim to understand their situation, nor can I imagine what it is like to live in a state of poverty, without education and without hope...and I am guessing, neither can you.

I see what you are getting at. But, what I am getting at, which I hope you can see, is there are different issues that Daley could tackle, that may direclty or indirectly influence the amount of violence on our city streets. In my opinion, gun control is an issue that looks good on paper, but is a waste of Daley's resources. With the time he is spending on a task force for gun control, he could spend it on education, affordable housing (which would improve the quality of life for the West Side and South Side), the CTA (many poor take public transportation because it's cheaper than a car), and other programs.

And for the record, Woodlawn, I have voted in all but one election since I turned 18, and I did not vote for Daley. I also volunteer, write letters, send emails, talk to my friends and family, and educate myself. Please provide a suggestion on how I can "move mountains".

Automobiles aren't "bad." They are dangerous. If we are really serious about reducing highway fatalities, we should make it illegal to own cars for personal use. That way, with public transportation, men and women could still enjoy their pursuits, people in rural areas could still ride the train (or bus) and people in the cities could walk or ride bicycles. Everyone would worry less about getting killed on the highway.

vise77

eat shit. i only say what i say incessantly because of assholes like you. if i weren't a pacifist i would meet you on any corner in the city, you little weasel.

Are you for real, Wood? Or is this performance art/improv? There is a phrase in there that makes me wonder.

That said, Internet threats are about as potent as O'Douls. Get a life.

Steve: I think sometimes there are only two groups. Criminals and law-abiding citizens. As we have seen from the police beatings, the cops can fall into either category.

Steve, you are right to say that guns in the hands of criminals cause terror. But they also don't cause the majority of gun deaths, either (the leading cause of death by gun is actually suicide, by a wide margin). Also, if you have a gun in your household, statistics suggest that gun is roughly 20 times more likely to kill or injure a family member or friend than an intruder.

We all like to think that guns will protect us from crimes, and, in some cases they actually do. But we often forget just how much more likely it is that those guns will end up killing somebody innocent. The price we pay is enormous.

Carl, I enjoyed your mock-homage. But automobiles aren't (usually) weapons (and we do put more restrictions on their use than handguns, anyway, not to mention require insurance). I wouldn't suggest banning kitchen knives or baseball bats because they can be used to kill people; I would propose banning handguns because they are supposed to kill people. I do think that's a big difference. It's roughly the difference between letting people buy cars and not letting them buy tanks. One is just a lot more dangerous than the other.

joshua: You make some good arguments, but I wonder how far we will take government intrusion in the rights of the people. Like it or not, the Bill of Rights is rather clear that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Furthermore, hand guns aren't the only firearms that kill people. Should we completely disarm everyone? I am concerned about the physical, as well as the social ramifications of that.

It's easy to cite statistics and make them work in your favor. Here's a couple that I think illustrate that it isn't as simple as taking away all the guns: There are more gun, per capita, in Canda than in the US. Yet our homocide rates by firearm are higher. Why is this?

In Switzerland, the government gives every male who is 18 years old an automatic weapon. If something like that were to happen here, everyone would be screaming that violence would be rampant in the streets. Yet the Swiss don't have nearly the problems with gun violence that we do.

While it is tempting to turn to the government to solve all of our problems, it isn't always an effective solution (and I believe in government intervention more than most people). In this case, I would rather they stay out of my house and my closet.

Sparky: We are closer to agreeing than you might think. If you read my original post, I think this is a bit of a missdirection by Daley. I concede that point. However, I know a lot more about the streets of Chicago than you might think. I grew up in them at a time when things were much worse than they are now. I also applaud you for making a good argument on the issues at hand and the fact that you spend the amount of time doing what you do. I am being sincere in that. And for the record, I wasn't calling you out, because I notice that you don't come on here to bitch bitch bitch. I respect your argument, agree with points of it, but I don't buy it entirely. At the same time, you believe in what you do and you've come to that decision through working to not only research it, but change the things you don't agree with.

Vise: You nailed me. I have a lot of Andy Kaufman up my sleeve. Sincerely. But my point is that you and others on this board gripe about everything Daley does, just because he's Daley. It's your right, but you do it so often that it gets very old. I simply say the same things over and over so as to hold up a mirror to you. Same behaviour, flipside to your beliefs. As I said to Sparky, I hear a lot of people bitching and griping about the majority of things in Chicago, but with no suggestion as to how things can be fixed. I stand by my assertion, as I've come to believe it through my years as a resident, that Daley has done a great many things for this city. My own fear, as you seem to think everyone who subscribes to Daley's policies is under the spell of, is actually something of admiration for him. Daley won't get me for not voting or saying something on an internet board, just like you. Daley isn't some evil man like a lot of people seem to suggest. Daley isn't on the take, like a lot of you seem to believe. He doesn't need to be. He's powerful, but he got that way because of a reason: good leadership. If he wasn't a good leader, 70% of Chicago's voters wouldn't have punched the ticket for him last time around. As I've also said, there hasn't been someone who struck me as the kind of person who could lead this city the way he has for the last 18 years. Power, perhaps, but fear? If he was that dictatorial, he would have rubbed every one of his opponents out in the last 5 elections. If he was that dictatorial...I give up. I hope that you stick around after he's gone, because you will watch this city crumble. The only person who could come in and run things the way he has is Obama and my hope is that he becomes the next president of the United States. If not, it might be nice to have him back here - at least the majority of Chicagoans across all lines of parties, races and creeds will be happy...But until then, can we please not turn every fucking post about politics into a Daley bashing session?

WL: I never made a threat, but as Vise was wise enough to string together, a joke about meeting him. I am a pacifist, by the way. I'd also like to point out that I'm not some faceless internet tough-guy, at least no more so than you. WL is a what? Moniker? Next...

Kevin, you're right, of course, that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.

But there's a caveat: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In other words, the reason why the right to bear arms exists is because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State. Given that we already have a well regulated militia -- the National Guard -- and that additional militias aren't actually necessary for our security (thankfully), I would suggest it's time to revisit what the right to keep and bear arms should mean.

Switzerland is a good counter-example, but it also supports what I'm saying about militias: the Swiss need to arm everyone because the don't have a large standing army. Also, even in Switzerland, handguns are treated differently, and more restrictions are placed on their ownership.

In re: Canada, you're right: there are more guns per capita there than here in the U.S. But the crucial difference is that handguns are tougher to get in Canada -- you have to be part of a gun club, or a bona fide collector, or get special permission to carry the gun for self-protection. So, while there are more guns per capita in Canada, there are fewer handguns per capita, and this (in addition to cultural and other factors, surely) is one reason why gun violence in Canada is less than it is here.

Steve, you're right to suggest that we can't know whether or not the gun on your hip will kill an innocent person. All we can say is that it's more likely to kill an innocent person than a criminal. And I think we should make public policy decisions based on the outcomes that are likely to happen. Your analogy about alcohol is interesting, and poignant, but I don't think it's entirely accurate, unless we consider it in the context of drunk driving, which is against the law. And that's because drinking is usually a risk we incur ourselves (so long as we don't do it and get behind the wheel of a car). Having a handgun gun puts other people in our vicinity at increased risk. Again, there are times when armed citizens can foil crimes, vigilante style. But for every example of that, there are dozens of other handgun accidents that take people's lives.

joshua: Your argument for the collective rights theory is old, and has been ripped up pretty mightily by the DC Circuit. I don't understand why the Second Amendment is supposed to be read differently than the other ten, given that the rights of The People are enumerated quite clearly in the Bill of Rights. Did the founding fathers suddenly take leave of their senses when they wrote that amendment, meaning instead to say that the right of the states to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Given the clarity of the Verdugo-Urquidez ruling, I fear that if we reimagine the Second Amendment in terms of rights that the states hold, apart from the people, we will have given up the last of our liberties.

I'm sympathetic to taking guns out of the hands of dangerous people. But I am also infuriated that I can't posses a handgun in this city, and that it is so tremendously difficult to possess a firearm in Illinois. Considering that New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have some of the most restrictive firearms control policies in the nation, yet also have some of the worst incidents of gun violence, it's clear that prohibition isn't working.

Why can't the state create a regulation system where law-abiding citizens (like myself) can posses firearms responsibly? Doesn't the state have a much more profound interest in ensuring that people know how to safely handle and use firearms, rather than trying to pretend that if we refuse to allow people to register their weapons they will go away? In states out west, where conceal-carry laws are in place, incidents of gun violence is lower.

As it stands now, the only people that can carry handguns in Chicago (besides the aldermen) are cops and criminals. I'm left in the middle, and frankly, I find it insulting that the state tells me what is good for me and what isn't. Yes, guns are dangerous, but so is smoking and drinking, and they all have a cost and an impact on society as well.

I wrote a couple more detailed pieces on why both the magazine ban and assault weapons bans recently floating around the GA were absolutely absurd if anyone is interested:

Magazine Ban Looming - UPDATE

joshua: Clever arguments. They may work well in theory, but will they hold in practice?

I am unconvinced that Shay's Rebellion was the "major impetus" for including the second amendment. Read the history in the circuit court's arguments in both both Parker et al, and US v Emerson. Besides, reading the amendment in the individual rights context absolutely invites a repeat of Shay's Rebellion. That was the intent for both the amendment and the founding fathers. This is a nation founded in armed revolution.

I would argue that the answer to gun violence is not ridding the nation of handguns, but rather a deeper examination of the violence of our culture, something that government can aid, but most likely cannot lead.

Quick typo fix...

"Though they denied that the 2nd Amendment protected the ownership of sawed off shotguns it was merely because such firearms or anything like them were shown to be part of any modern military."

Should have said:

"Though they denied that the 2nd Amendment protected the ownership of sawed off shotguns it was merely because such firearms or anything like them WEREN'T shown to be part of any modern military."

Sorry.

-Glock21

"There are more gun, per capita, in Canada than in the US. Yet our homocide rates by firearm are higher. Why is this?"
Obviously that is because Canada is more rural and has a colder climate. As surely everyone knows, it is generally the densely populated areas that have problems with violance. And many of the gang shootings (which account for a very large percentage of the homicides) occur or are instigated when people are outside. When it is cold, people are less likely to be outside. There is no mystery with the reasoning behind that statistic.