Dear Mayor Daley, welcome to our side.

Submitted by admin on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:15

Mayor Daley is on his way out of office now and he wants to make one final stand on his no gun policy. But these new policies aren't "anti gun". In fact its the very type of policy that gun rights supporters have been asking for... don't regulate the GUN, target the violent ACTIONS that make people criminals.

The four newly proposed measures would automatically transfer to adult court cases of 15- to 17-year olds arrested with a gun; require at least five years behind bars for felons caught with weapons; require 10 years in prison for people who point guns at police and firefighters responding to emergencies; and make it a felony to commit a crime with a child in tow if that child is injured by gunfire. Via the Chicago Tribune


What I want to know is why NOW??? Why after 22 years as Mayor has Daley only NOW decided to target the violent behavior of criminals? Because he finally figured out the running an anti-gun city does not prevent crime. Daley finally figured out that the way to reduce CRIME is to target CRIMINALS. 

I find it funny that the anti-gun crowd actually thinks this is one final testament to their cause. Instead this is a white flag of surrender and acceptance of everything gun owners have been saying since the Bill of Rights.

Daley's anti-gun laws only affected citizens that obeyed the laws. So for 22 years Daley wasted valuable time and resources to punish lawful citizens. You see a Criminal is a person that has already been caught by the police after they commit the crime that made them a criminal.  I drive a car that has the potential to go fast but I am only committing a crime IF I drive fast; its not the CAR its the ACTION. The Police rarely are able to prevent crime because the crime itself has to occur in order for them to act. So this new policy is actually punishment for Criminals. 

Basic economic theory says people respond to incentives and it applies equally to guns and criminal behavior. Incentives you see can be a benefit or a deterrent. For a criminal, the stolen goods are a benefit but the risk of punishment if caught is a deterrent. If using a gun increases the amount of stolen goods but doesn't pose a significantly higher risk of punishment then basic economic theory says criminals will increasingly use guns. Bans on guns themselves impose no negative incentives because career criminals shouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place. Why worry about the punishment for carrying a gun if you are on your way to raping, stealing and killing?

Its important to understand that effective laws serve as deterrents to future crime in two ways:

  1. A criminal commits a crime but the legal punishment serves as a deterrent so the individual doesn't commit a "future" offense. For example the criminal can not commit another crime because his is still in prison or the fear of returning to prison deters him from committing a new crime.
  2. But laws also help to deter people from ever committing a crime in the first place. Laws address what actions are viewed as criminal so honest people are aware that jay walking is wrong or driving over 60 mph is unsafe. But someone intent on robbery does so without a gun because he fears the added risk of punishment for using a firearm. 

Or Either way its trying to stop a crime that hasn't happened.


Its rather simple really but it took Chicago 28 years to figure it out. 


Drupal theme by Kiwi Themes.