June 6, 2013

Interpreting What Gary McCarthy Has to Say

This is the part where I usually post a photo of something. I despise Gary McCarthy for many reasons, so I refuse to post his mug. I think he is a scumbag for many reasons, one of which was assaulting a detective because that detective wouldn't let his child off the hook for some traffic violation.

Chicago has been anti-gun since the 1960s. They, as a city have said that guns are a menace to society and that for the "greater, moral good" we should ban weapons and their carriage. On a concealed carry law, Gary McCarthy had this to say:

"You put more guns on the street expect more shootings.  I don’t care if they’re licensed legal firearms, people who are not highly trained… putting guns in their hands is a recipe for disaster. So I’ll train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire and we’re going to have tragedies as a result of that. I’m telling you right up front."  

-Garry McCarthy"

Dissecting McCarthy's Argument

We are going to dissect his argument because that is what I do. Immediately, we can recognize that it is a fallacy that "more guns on the streets" means more shootings. Not so. The department of justice has indicated that as lawful gun ownership increases, violent crime decreases. It is a safe bet to insinuate that that also counts for petty crimes such as robbery (when a gun is pointed at someone).

You see, Gary has already stated that citizens aren't police. He believes that the only rights you have to firearms are to own muskets. This is another major league fallacy. The Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia stated that you cannot regulate the 2nd amendment to ban commonly used platforms. This is an idea championed by Chicago and the anti-gunners: that since citizens aren't cops they shouldn't be able to touch guns. Wrong, wrong wrong. That is not what the 2nd amendment says at all. To the literalists argument, which is Gary's, the militia means the police.

He would be wrong on that count too. The militia has been interpreted as any able bodied man or woman that can pick up a gun and fire it.

"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"

Militia: Who Are the Militia?
for the longest time, the anti's used the pathetic excuse that the militia was the police or national guard, so they could take guns away from the people. I had a B in English in high school and college; and clearly the right to keep and bear arms references the people, who become the militia- able bodied people able to fire a weapon in defense of the state or for other lawful purposes. Don't care what my opinion is? the Supreme Court verified it. Gary McCarthy doesn't care; it has already been stated from Chicago that guns are a menace to society and are a plague on the Earth. It was the cornerstone of their defense in Shepard v. Madigan and likely in Otis v. MacDonald. That is what Chicago thinks of gun owners. They believe, and it has been stated nationally by some actors, that gun owners are part of the problem of gun violence.

Who is the actual problem when it comes to "gun" violence?

That is another fallacy which I will address briefly. The problem isn't law abiding gun owners. The problem is GANG BANGERS and MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE NOT BEING REPORTED TO NICS.

Even then, firearms, according to the DOJ, end up in the hands of felons through three primary means: through being stolen, through the black market, or from family/friends. Thus, by proxy, Chicago has blamed gun owners. We are always demonized. Let's be clear where the majority of "bad" guns come from.

1) Tie for Stolen/Black Market purchase
2) Family/Friends

Gun owners account for a tiny, miniscule fraction of accidental deaths/manslaughter. Even if they did commit a crime with a permit, as argued by Chicago, that permit and their rights can be kissed goodbye. Chicago wants to take away the possibility of the crimes occuring by disarming the populous so that they must rely on police protection. Yet, in another part of the country and understaffed PD told a woman to tell her rapist to "go away" because they could not send an officer to her location. She was savagely beaten and raped. If that was in my home, I would be screaming at the top of my lungs for the intruder to get down and let me see your hands. Ever seen an angry German person yell at the top of their lungs? and I am only around 1/3rd German.

The Final Piece of Interpretation

It's a little hard to determine what McCarthy actually meant on record. We can twist this one of two ways:

"but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire"

This means one of two things. It is standard protocol, to my knowledge, that if you point a gun at a police officer or soldier, you will be blown away. You are presenting a threat to that officer/soldier, and they will respond by acting first, thinking later. They are justified if, and only if, a gun is in someone's hands and they are turning towards the officer, especially if the firearm is pointed at them. If I ever had a situation where I had someone at gun point for lawful purposes and the cops showed up, when they tell me to put the gun down, that gun, and then my ass is square parallel to that ground with my hands behind my head and my knees crossed.

He could also mean that if a permit holder had to shoot someone in self defense that if they were spotted by a cop with a gun in their hand that they would immediately be profiled, targeted and shot. That would be grounds for a wrongful death. Originally, a few months ago I took what he said as a threat, but because of the ambiguity here I am not so sure what his intent was. It is clear though: McCarthy doesn't care about you; not as a gun owner and not as a citizen.

No comments: