He may be an actor, but he’s from Chicago — and speaks the unspeakable about guns . . . more

. . . arguing the obvious, that bad guys ignore no-gun signs:

Vince Vaughn Wants Guns In Schools: Tired of hearing about school shootings? Actor and former Chicagoan Vince Vaughn apparently thinks more guns would help stop the heinous acts. Politico shares part of an interview the actor did with British GQ, where he suggested that schools would be safer if guns were allowed:

“In all of our schools it is illegal to have guns on campus, so again and again these guys go and shoot up these f——ing schools because they know there are no guns there,” he told the magazine.

He’s clearly not been keeping up with the news in Chicago, where more than 300 people were shot, 37 fatally, in May.

Instead, we moan and groan (correctly) but refuse to recognize the Wild West situation.

The presumed quick rebuttal misses the mark, telling how many were shot. Vaughn argues the more-guns-less-crime case, which precisely aims to reduce the bloodshed.

Now you see concealed-carry, now you don’t:: D. Harmon’s proposal

Oak Park Chronicles

A new twist on Sen. Harmon’s proposed twisting of concealed-carry to insert in the law the presumption of no-guns-allowed, as envisioned by a guns-fearing woman:

Nicole said she sees signs indicating gun-free zones are currently posted at her child’s pre-school, and finds them to be a frightening reminder of the tragic mass-shooting of young children in Newtown, Conn. in 2012.

She told FOX 32 news that Senate Bill 2669 would render gun-free zone signs redundant and unnecessary at places like her child’s school. She also said local businesses would benefit from posting positive signs as opposed to negative ones.

The positive sign would say guns allowed, presumption being not allowed. Progressive Dem sleight of hand, right?

View original post

Guns no? Not everywhere.

Dem platform will be anti-gun:

“Boiled down, all it really means is that the Democrats are still the party of gun control no matter how they try to re-package the rhetoric.”

So will Oak Park:

So far, Oak Park appears to be the only suburb ready to go to court to contest the Supreme Court decision, though others may follow as the NRA continues to bring lawsuits against other Illinois towns with similar handgun bans.

OP will join Chicago in its resistance to the Supremes.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has said the city plans to fight in court to keep its handgun ban in place, and Oak Park is likely to join the battle.

Major question here: What will it cost OP?  I mean in money.

Keep your voice down and be reasonable

Call Me Ahab (love the name) thinks pro-gun is winning the national debate because proponents are willing to debate, while anti-gunners cut off debate and belabor us with how many are killed with guns every year, “or talking about blood in the streets, etc.”

Meanwhile, we argue with facts, statistics; our debate thrives in the open because it’s based on logic and reason, and not on appeals to emotion.

Well, I tell you.  That’s the conservative way.

Weis grilled

John Kass has the Supt. Weis questioning as politics as usual in Chi, W. having shaken up things that were just fine as far as aldermen are concerned — why did he have to go and do that? they wonder as K. sees it, probably with unerring accuracy.

Just a few years ago, even the Chicago mob had a big say in who worked where in the top echelons of the department.

William Hanhardt, the heroic chief of detectives, was once the guy to see in the department about promotions and transfers and so on, even though he wasn’t technically the superintendent, and the Hanhardt culture shaped the detective division. When he was later convicted of running an Outfit-backed jewelry-heist ring, using top cops to glean information about his targets from police computers, the aldermen neglected something.

They neglected to hold a hearing to get to the bottom of things. They didn’t ask any questions. Not one. Not even the mayor would condemn him, which is the Chicago Way.

In addition, an op-ed from an ex-FBI black guy living in Texas who grew up in Chi and got shot for his trouble by a ‘hood resident whom he tackled while fleeing with a snatched purse, says about the aldermanic grilling:

Chicago’s public officials are looking through the wrong end of the telescope when they indulge in second-guessing Supt. Weis’ shuffling of his command structure. And it’s not handguns that need to be controlled, it’s the hands holding the guns.

But the formidable Heather Mac Donald in WashPost has substance to beat all in the matter, pushing for the sort of police procedures that saved New York from itself in the 90s — “the single most effective urban policy of the last decade: accountable, data-driven policing.”

[I]n New York City in the 1990s, Police Commissioner William Bratton and a group of hard-charging reformers embraced the iconoclastic idea that policing could in fact radically lower crime.

Iconoclastic in view of “[t]he received wisdom of the Great Society . . . that crime could be lowered only by eliminating its “root causes”: poverty and racism.”

The N.Y.P.D. pioneered an array of techniques to provide precinct commanders with the most up-to-date information on crime patterns and to constantly evaluate which crime-fighting strategies actually worked. Most important, commanders were held ruthlessly accountable for crime in their jurisdictions.

Sans aldermanic or city council member input, it goes without saying.

The results were startling: From 1993 to 1997, major felonies in New York City dropped 41 percent and homicides 60 percent — a record unmatched anywhere else at the time.

New York “roared back to life”:

Not only the central business districts of Manhattan experienced this rebirth; businesses poured into predominantly minority areas in Harlem, Brooklyn and the Bronx. The residents of these once-troubled neighborhoods experienced freedom of movement and economic opportunities that had been deemed permanently lost.

Yes.  Next time you hear about City Hall neglecting neighborhoods, do not think job training or subsidies.  Think law and order.  And if it’s not too heretical for you, look towards New York in the 90s.

Reading noosepapers

Headlines can be fun:

* ChiTrib’s front page headline for a story about a lost and found three-year-old is about “Panic.”  What’s it doing now?  “Turns into joy, relief,” says hard copy headline.  This answers a question in the minds of many, “What’s Panic been up to lately?”

* Trib again, next to this: “Bernanke grabs reins on economy.”  Up to his old horse-riding tricks.

* More Trib, still p-1: about “Russia’s toxic rivers.”  What’s new with them?  I’ve been wondering.  They are “running out of time.”  Like the drinkers in T.S. Eliot’s bar, hearing, “HURRY UP PLEASE IT’S TIME.”

Same story, sub-head: “Mother Volga . . . oozes sickly to the sea.”  Not a good thing to ooze sickly.  Nothing this father wants to do, nor any mother of his acquaintance.  Get well soon, Mrs. Volga.

* Sun-Times also pleases. Mary Mitchell says “Taste” shooting “not new” to residents of “black and brown” neighborhoods where gangs prevail.  She missed this year’s Taste, hasn’t been to one since her kids “nearly drowned in a sea of people . . . streaming out of Grant Park.”  Not oozing, notice.

This time, “young thugs . . . streamed into the Loop [again!], bringing their gang signs and armed bravado with them.”

“Some Chicagoans” know all about these “urban terrorists” — and she has that right, which looks like a leaf from Dennis Byrne’s book

What to do?  Would have been “a riot” if cops had moved in aggressively, as Daley said, she says.  Her answer: more cops in the neighborhoods.  Doing what?  (Byrne: Call out the National Guard.)

* Meanwhile, Supt. Weis merits p-1 S-T treatment for maybe dropping the Taste ball.  “Rookie mistakes?” asks banner.  “Were police unprepared?” asks p. 5 story, where the failure to round up the bad guys is attributed to lack of enough squadrols rather than fearing a riot. 

Low in this story is the killer statistic that murder is up 13% “under Weis’s watch . . . over the first six months of the year.”  Yes, even with the city’s gun-control laws.

* Finally, laugh with us here at Blithe Spirit at Steve Rhodes’s riff on insurance magnate Pat Ryan’s “doubts violence will affect 2016 [Olympic] bid,” Ryan being in charge of that process. 

Rhodes looks into the future and sees these key developments:

* “Olympic Boss Doubts Today’s Congestion on the Kennedy Will Affect 2016 Bid.”

* “Olympic Boss Doubts Cubs Loss Will Affect 2016 Bid.”

* “Olympic Boss Doubts Failure of CHA Will Affect 2016 Bid.”

* “Olympic Boss Doubts Fewer Starbucks’ Will Affect 2016 Bid.”

* “Olympic Boss Doubts Lame Hometown Cheerleading Press Will Affect 2016 Bid.”

Er, wait a second . . .

Later, he adds:

 “Olympic Boss Doesn’t Think Jailed Governors Will Affect 2016 Bid.”

And yet later:

Comedy Gold
“Police: Suspect Tried To Rob Bar With Cheese Grater.”

Local Reaction
“Olympic Boss Doesn’t Think Cheese Grater Robbery Will Affect 2016 Bid.”

With Olympic bosses like this, we can move mountains.

One of the D.C. gangs

Oak Park (IL) village manager Tom Barwin is not apologizing for saying the Supreme Court is “in alliance with the gangbangers” in its ruling in favor of individual right to own a gun, but he does have advice for others:

“I really think we ought to tone down the emotion, which I will also try to do,” he said. “But I think we should be working harder to find common ground and eliminate these conditions that breed violence.

He will try very hard to tone it down but is willing to leave the Supremes dangling with gangsters.

“I think the … gangbanger comments really just were a way to succinctly express that, in my experience and view, the further proliferation of guns will inevitably result in more drug pushers and those of a criminal mind ending up with firearms.”

As it is, of course, they have to get along with their bare fists?

Later, from Dick Cutler in Ann Arbor:

I have strong sentiments about private possession of firearms.  I grew up on a farm; I had guns then; I have guns now (several, would you like an inventory and a report of my marksmanship?); and FINALLY, “I intend to keep my  guns and my skill in using them  — so as to be prepared to shoot the miserable ass off anyone who comes to take them from me.”