[ | | | 0 interested person(s) ]

Not that I did not see this coming but I was hoping that common sense would prevail in this case. It has not.

Today the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Chicago handgun ban in its 5-4 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Many will site the importance to bear arms to protect ones family or the ability to rise up again some future ominous oppressive government. Neither argument holds much water.

The irony of the argument that handgun are necessary for family protection is that the Chicago handgun ban had, according to statistical evidence presented in an amicus brief submitted to the court, resulted in as many as 1,000 fewer homicides since it was enacted in 1982, particularly those occurring in the home and involving family members.

At issue with the second argument is that handguns are a necessity to protect against government oppression - social movements can and have occurred without guns.

I hope that Chicago and other cities continue to push for alternative strategies to regulate and monitor the sale and transfer of firearms. I also would like to hear the necessity for citizens to own handguns. This past weekend alone 26 people were shot in Chicago and 3 were killed. Our insistence and gun owning fetish is nonsensical and unjustified. When is enough truly enough?

0 interested person(s)

Post a Comment