Thursday, July 01, 2010

Mayor Daley Is An Idiot

I just read this online and frankly, it's not surprising. Aside from Daley being a Democrat, and that alone makes him an idiot, his position on gun control is about the goofiest pile of steaming bile one can imagine. This line is a gem:

"As long as I'm mayor, we will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago," said Daley, who was flanked by activists, city officials and the parents of a teenager whose son was shot and killed on a city bus while shielding a friend.

If he knew how to read, he could bone up on the studies that show a marked drop in violent crime following the enactment of concealed carry laws in states that have them. He could also see how states like his (which is also mine) have much higher murder rates per capita than do states with more reasonable gun laws. If he didn't have his fat head buried so deeply up his posterior, he would understand that the scum of the earth will not be the least bit put out by his attempt to further contribute to gun violence by continuing to disarm the law-abiding in Chicago.

The following is from the list of restrictions he's planning on enacting once the SCOTUS decision takes effect:

"• Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

He almost gets it right. Convicts, I believe, are already prohibited from gun ownership, though I might be wrong on that. But that is a good law to have. I don't mind that right being restricted for those who have proven to be a lawbreaker already. But the rest of the line poses problems. Neither domestic violence or drunk driving means one is likely to go shooting up the place. And domestic violence can mean varying degrees, with one side being somewhat, uh, less violent.

In any case, this would be a wee bit less insulting if the Mayor was not armed himself, either personally or by virtue of having bodyguards. None of his proposals should be passed without him having to surrender any arms or bodyguards that he uses for personal protection. OR, he should not be able to leave the house, or sit on his porch, or be in his garage with his bodyguards with him. Leave them in the house.

21 comments:

Ms.Green said...

But Daley HAS to have firearms to protect him. He is MORE IMPORTANT than the rest of us.

Dan Trabue said...

I just noticed this...

Neither domestic violence or drunk driving means one is likely to go shooting up the place.

Actually, yes, it does mean that...

Legal Momentum, formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, estimates that between 1,000 and 1,600 women die every year at the hands of their male partners; and domestic violence abusers are 12 times more likely to kill their victims if they have a gun.

source

* A recent study shows that access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times compared to instances where there are no weapons. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.

* Women are twice as likely to be shot and killed by intimate partners as they are to be murdered by strangers using any type of weapon.

* The cost of domestic violence is nearly $67 billion per year, roughly 15% of total U.S crime costs.


source

Access to firearms yields a more than five-fold increase in risk of intimate partner homicide when considering other factors of abuse, according to a recent study, suggesting that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.

source

I could go on, but you get the idea. Abusers with guns are a statistically significantly more dangerous threat and, if "research" and "studies" have any impact on policy-making, abusers should NOT be allowed to have guns.

Getting soft on crime, Marshall?

Dan Trabue said...

On the other hand, you might be right about drunk drivers. They should lose their DRIVERS license and any right to drive a car, but I don't know of any reason why they couldn't own guns.

Marshall Art said...

"Getting soft on crime, Marshall?"

Not in the least. But Daley, as are most Dems, are soft on Constitutional rights.

Cite all the stats you want, but remember a couple of things when you do. To begin, those stats don't have anything to do with the right to bear arms.

Those people aren't law-abiding, obviously, and you can't determine before hand who will turn to killing. Such stats are after the fact. Fortune tellers aren't reliable.

If you're talking about people already convicted of being abusive to their spouses (and these days, it goes both ways; man to woman, woman to man, and by all accounts, more so in the homosex community), then you're talking about somone who is already a criminal and a case to deprive them of the right to own a weapon is reasonable and aligns with the intent of the founders.

Furthermore, if you're going to use such stats to make a case of some kind, you can't then ignore stats such as: a man is 44 times more likely to contract a social disease if he is a homo than if he is a hetero.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, you were talking about a law that would prohibit CONVICTED abusers from getting a gun...

Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence

In response to that law, you said...

I don't mind that right being restricted for those who have proven to be a lawbreaker already. But the rest of the line poses problems. Neither domestic violence or drunk driving means one is likely to go shooting up the place.

1. So then, do you agree that those who have been CONVICTED of abuse (you know, violent crime) ought not be able to have guns?

2. Do you agree that it appears you are mistaken in saying that "domestic violence [doesn't] mean one is likely to go shooting up the place," since, in fact, it DOES appear that this is exactly the case?

I wasn't talking about prohibiting people we don't know are abusive (how would we do that?), I was talking about the law you cited: Prohibiting those who have been convicted of domestic violence.

This is why I was asking if you were going soft on crime.

So, perhaps we agree?

Marshall Art said...

The stats didn't stipulate convictions. If an abuser is convicted of abuse, that makes the stats moot. One caveat would have to be what qualifies for "abusive". How ambiguous or all-encompassing is the term legally? If I slap my wife in a rare perfect storm of emontions, something that hasn't ever come close to happening in all the years of marriage, and because we're having difficulties that compel her to divorce, if that is used to convict me of being an abuser, should I lose the right to protect myself? Divorce has a tendency to distort reality. Thus, I would need to know that the term has a more specific use, that there's some history there to which one or more people have testified.

Dan Trabue said...

I'd say that if you are convicted of domestic violence, you'd lose the right to own a gun.

You know, don't you, that it's entirely possible to defend yourself without owning a gun? I've lived in Louisville's "bad neighborhoods," walking and biking daily through them, even at night, for over 20 years without ever needing a gun to defend myself.

Not all men have to rely on guns for defense.

I'm not sure how likely it is that you'd be convicted of domestic violence if you just slapped your wife once. Even so, I wouldn't have much sympathy for such an abusive action. If someone strikes their spouse - even once - that is a despicable action and if they are convicted for it, then they're paying the price for their actions.

You're not defending beating women, are you?

And so, you DO agree that convicted abusers ought to lose their "right" to own a gun? I'm still not sure where you stand on this because your comments seem to go back and forth. A little clarity?

Dan Trabue said...

As to what the laws specifically say, I imagine it's different in every state. Here are the federal laws about domestic violence, though.

They include...

It is a federal crime for a person to travel interstate (or to leave or enter Indian country) with the intent to injure, harass, or intimidate that person's intimate partner...

It is also a federal crime to cause an intimate partner to cross state lines (or to leave or enter Indian country) by force, coercion, duress, or fraud during which or as a result of which, there is bodily harm to the victim...

It is illegal for a person to possess a firearm while subject to a court order restraining such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner...


Or, from Kentucky...

Batterers use domination, intimidation, terrorizing, rule-making, stalking, harassing and injurious behavior to control and manipulate the actions of their partners and sometimes their children.

Physical violence includes putting your hands on a person against his/her will. It also includes shoving, pushing, grabbing, pulling or forcing someone to stay somewhere. Regardless of the relationship between two people, using physical violence or force against someone is a crime.


For instance. Reasonable laws, seems to me.

Marshall Art said...

Put another way, domestic abuse is already a violent crime, so why list it when violent crime is already there? I think perhaps the law could include degrees or classes, like they do with murder and felonies so that simple assaults, those that are the result of a rare situation, are not grouped with chronic abusers. Anyone can be provoked, but not all who are can legitimately be considered violent and dangerous people. That is my concern. Otherwise, we're likely in agreement.

Craig said...

I could be wrong, but currently felons are prohibited from excercisnig various rights guaranteed to those of us who are non felons. One is the right to vote, another is the right to bear amrs. I would think that most would agree that it makes sense to strip felons of those particular rights. I'd maybe qualify it as violent felons, but have no quarrel with the law as it is.

But to the point of the post, yas it is incredibly hypocritical for those in power to try to deny the citizenry a right that they wish to keep for themselves.

Daley is a Chicago politician, for the rest of the country it goes without saying that he is an idiot. I thoughyt it was a qualification for election there.

Dan Trabue said...

Put another way, domestic abuse is already a violent crime, so why list it when violent crime is already there? I think perhaps the law could include degrees or classes, like they do with murder and felonies so that simple assaults, those that are the result of a rare situation, are not grouped with chronic abusers.

Why list it when they have already said violent crime? Because too often, people soft pedal domestic abuse as not REALLY being a violent crime. It's just a spat, a misunderstanding, a one time thing. It's between a married couple.

IF someone has been convicted of domestic abuse or domestic terrorism, they HAVE been convicted of a violent crime and my guess would this is just to point out what should be obvious.

Just my guess.

Marshall Art said...

To clarify my position on domestic abuse, I would only say that a person can be labelled an abuser for innocuous acts. This mirrors sex abuser status that can haunt a man who was convicted when he was 18 because he slept with his 16 year old girlfriend. Because he is a convicted sex offender, he is looked upon as if he molested a 7 yr old.

In the same way, a guy who, as I suggested earlier, can, in the heat of passion, be provoked to act in a manner not consistent with his character. He pushes the wife, she falls against something that results in a concussion or an open wound and then calls the police because SHE'S pissed and hurt. Had she not badgered her husband, he never would have lost it after trying to deal with it for too long. Now, it is not impossible that he can, due to the quality of lawyers working the case, be convicted of being an abuser.

That's not fair at all. Some women just happen to be a-holes and some men take longer to realize they've become chumps of such women. It's easy to say what he should have done from a third party perspective, and whether that hindsight advice is accurate is besides the point and irrelevant.

You may think that for such a man to lose his right to arm himself is no big deal, but that's speaking as someone who doesn't think the right is important or doesn't think anyone should be defending themselves in the first place. It's also more than possible that the neighborhoods you think are bad ones aren't as bad as you think they are, nor are the people in them as tough as you think they are.

But none of that matters, anyway. A man could live in a hippie commune and his right to bear arms for the protection of his self, his family and his property still exists and is something with which he was endowed by his Creator. Your opinion of self-defense doesn't enter into it. The level of danger one perceives has no bearing on that right.

Back to the domestic abuser, I simply feel that degrees of abuse must be a definite part of the equation. There must be some chronic aspect that can be verified through some method in order to separate the real abusers from those only accused of such by devious spouses with better lawyers. That's all I'm saying.

Mark said...

I think common sense should be required in dispensing justice.

For instance, I have a friend who will be reporting today to serve a 6 month sentence in jail for nothing more than living in a home that has guns in it while serving parole. This man is far from being a violent man. And the home he was staying in at the time was his brothers.

Common sense should have been a consideration in applying the law in this case, and thousands of others.

A man whose wife badgers and pushes him to the point that he is forced to physically push her off him to protect himself one time should not have his hunting rifles taken away from him.

Common sense. Something which Dan is sorely lacking.

Mark said...

Of course, if Mayor Daley simply Protected and defended the Constitution of the United States, according to his oath of office, and as he should, this would not even be an issue. The second amendment rights are...well...rights.

We have as much right to bear arms as he does to be an idiot.

Dan Trabue said...

A man whose wife badgers and pushes him to the point that he is forced to physically push her off him to protect himself

A woman badgering a man is sufficient cause to "force" him to "physically push her" to "protect himself?" Is that really your position?

Is the man not able to stand up and walk away? What sort of action do you think "forces" a man to get physically aggressive with a woman?

You all SEEM to be hinting that a woman can merely pester a man to the point that physical violence is "sort of" justified, but I'm not sure from the way you're stating it.

Here, I'll be clear: There is NO cause for a man to physically push, hit, slap, shove or smack her if she is merely talking/complaining/whining. That would be an unjustified assault (as it would for any two people). I believe that would be the legal conclusion on such a matter, it certainly seems the moral one to me.

If you don't like what someone is saying, you can always walk away, there is no need for violence in such a situation and any man who does engage in it - especially with a child or a woman - is an abuser and a coward, to boot, in my estimation. If someone is convicted of such, I'm fine with them losing their right to have guns.

Studies indicate that abuse does not tend to be a one time thing, it is a habit that one falls into and repeats and which tends to get more aggressive unless they get help.

Marshall Art said...

"A woman badgering a man is sufficient cause to "force" him to "physically push her" to "protect himself?" Is that really your position?"

Not even close. Read again. The argument is that some men are provoked into actions not consistent with their character. This doesn't excuse their actions, but it doesn't justify the punishment of being convicted and then forever labelled in a manner that renders them unable to overcome the perception that they are complete a-holes who push around women.

And why wouldn't they just walk away? The reasons can be many:

-Perhaps the same reason that abused women don't walk away. Some women are mentally and emotionally abused and don't leave. They may even lash out in one way or another. But they may be enablers and men can be as well. Not a good thing, but I doubt one sees one's self as an enabler as it is happening. But once a limit is reached, one may snap and throw a fist or grab and push. The point is that the woman is the real abuser, but the man could be the one legally labelled as such and lose his rights. This is not justice and in fact would be a legal penance the sin does not warrant.

-The man might simply be a good Christian with poor judgement in potential wives. He marries someone who in reality is an a-hole and because he understands the importance of the vow he took, as well as the importance of Christ's teachings (in this case, "forgiveness"), and is willing to go to whatever lengths he feels necessary to maintain the marriage. Then one day she pushes the wrong button and he reacts. Not justified, but again, neither would being labelled a wife beater and losing his rights.

The fact is that like with other laws, such as drunk driving laws, deadbeat dad laws and some others, real nastiness had been tolerated for so long that now laws have been enacted that go too far the other way. They are being applied to those who don't really fit the law and the type of person the law was designed to punish. This is my concern here and that is far more "moral" than any blanket punishment covering any "push, hit, slap, shove or smack" that some overbearing shrew might receive from a fed up husband. Bear in mind that this goes both ways. There are women who are physically abusive and I believe that such cases are coming close to being equal in frequency.

I agree that MOST cases of abuse, where a conviction happens, IS the result of chronic abuse rather than a one-time thing. I'm just saying that it MUST be chronic and I'm not sure that we can rest assured that that is the ALWAYS the case. Before someone has to lose his rights, I'd like to see some assurances that those people who aren't routine abusers aren't treated as such. That's all I'm saying.

Oh, that and the fact that Daley didn't need to use the term to enhance his lame argument against prohibiting the law abiding from their God-given right to defend themselves.

Mark said...

Dan, as usual, splits hairs to argue against something he knows little or nothing about.

But, since he obviously doesn't understand the reason for my comment, I will explain:

I was referring to a specific incident involving me and my first wife. My wife backed me into a corner slapping, scratching, and grabbing me with the intention of biting me. All I did was try to keep her off me, and she grabbed my wire rimmed glasses off my face and rolled them up in a tight little wad and then threw them at me. Now, half blind with out my glasses (I have really bad vision) I finally physically pushed her off of me, and got myself out of the corner before she could do further damage. Then, I left the house.

Dan seems to indicate I should have had my hunting rifles taken away from me for this.

I disagree.

By the way, this was only one of several incidents that moved me to file for divorce a short time later, but only after she had been clinically diagnosed as a Paranoid schizophrenic by a board certified highly qualified Doctor of Psychiatry.

Dan has recently implied that I am not as good a man as he is because I have been divorced and remarried.

I daresay Dan wouldn't have lasted as long as I did before finally filing for divorce under those circumstances.

Of course, Dan is such a wuss, he probably would have crumpled crying in the corner while his wife pummeled and kicked him to death.

Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan Trabue said...

The argument is that some men are provoked into actions not consistent with their character. This doesn't excuse their actions, but it doesn't justify the punishment of being convicted and then forever labelled in a manner that renders them unable to overcome the perception that they are complete a-holes who push around women.

Provoked, how? Mark seemed to be suggesting that men could be provoked simply by having a nagging woman talking to him. Someone who is thusly "provoked" probably deserves what's coming to him.

Otherwise, I think we agree. I'd just hate to downplay the horror of domestic abuse simply because there is some small minority of cases where there may have been some mutual abuse happening.

If you're talking about abuse "some overbearing shrew might receive from a fed up husband" and by "overbearing shrew" you just mean a mean-spirited woman, then the correct response is to walk away. IF you hit someone (especially more than once) then you weren't "provoked" by someone's talking, you assaulted someone.

I fully understand that some adults have a hard time acting like it and let things build until they snap, but that is not an excuse for an assault. The adult thing is to walk away from someone who annoys you. We rightly don't allow people to physically assault others simply because the other was "annoying."

Dan Trabue said...

Mark...

I finally physically pushed her off of me, and got myself out of the corner before she could do further damage. Then, I left the house.

Dan seems to indicate I should have had my hunting rifles taken away from me for this.


No, in that case, SHE was being abusive and you were defending yourself. But that's not what it sounded like you were saying when you said... "A man whose wife badgers and pushes him to the point that he is forced to physically push her off him to protect himself..."

You meant she was PHYSICALLY pushing you and you pushed back. That was the clarification I was seeking. The way you both keep phrasing it, it has sounded like you were both talking about a woman merely being whiny and bitchy with her words and that a man "forced" to hit her in that situation is not the same as an actual abuser.

If you're talking about self-defense, that is different. Just seeking clarification, Mark. That is why I asked a question.

I'm coming out strongly against assault of any sort and specifically abuse of women and children, which I find despicable and think we all agree upon.

Mark said...

For the record:

I believe there is NEVER a reason for a man to strike a woman. EVER.

There is simply no excuse. Period.

Both of my previous wives physically assaulted me in the course of my marriages. My second wife doesn't count though, really, because, like Dan, she hits like a girl.

Both are clinically mentally disabled. The first is paranoid schizophrenic, the second one suffers from Munchhausen's syndrome.

I never struck either of them. I divorced them.