Another Damn Lawyer With A Blog
This was going to be a quote of the day post but there was too much. Check out The Trigger:
Scientists say that every 19 seconds in the United States, another lawyer starts his own blog. If this trend continues, every lawyer in the country will have his own blog by the fall of 2032.
And:
I’m a thirtysomething (semi-libertarian) conservative lawyer in Chicago, Illinois. That tells you three things about me:
1. I usually vote Republican;
2. I often don’t feel very good about it; and
3. My vote never matters anyway.
With snark like that, I can’t help but read. But I recommend he get out of Chicago.
November 28th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
But if he left Chicago, where on Earth would he get a decent hot dog?
November 28th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
Yeah, I usually grab a dog when I’m forced to layover in their shitty airport.
November 28th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
tgirsch,
perhaps someplace where he wouldn’t be jailed for being able to defend himself? or someplace where less people have died than say, american soldiers in a war zone? (Chicago has lost more people to homicide than we’ve lost troops in Iraq to hostile action since march of 2003).
Freedom – it’s the perfect seasoning to compliment any meal. 😛
November 28th, 2005 at 10:34 pm
Good point, I’ll have a layover there myself later this week. Mmmm, hot dogs.
November 29th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
Publicola:
What if he really likes hot dogs?
As to the homicide thing, lies, damn lies, and statistics. Unless, of course, you’re going to tell me you’d feel safer in Baghdad than you would in Chicago. But if you want to play the stats game, fine: In 2003, there were roughly 600 homicides in the city of Chicago. In a population of 2.8 million, that’s a homicide rate of 0.02%. In 2003 (March-December), there were 482 US casualties in Iraq. With an average US troop deployment of 175,000 in 2003, that makes a 0.28% casualty rate. Still small, but almost 14 times higher than that of America’s most dangerous city. And that’s only if you’re generous and count all the troops in Iraq, rather than just the “in theater” troops. That number is generally reckoned at about 30,000, meaning that 482 casualties equates to a 1.6% casualty rate, more than 81 times higher than Chicago’s.
Aren’t bullshit statistics fun?
In truth, Chicago’s homicide statistics have little to do with gun laws and gun availability, and a lot to do with population density and income distribution.
And they still have the best hot dogs.
November 29th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
“or someplace where less people have died than say, american soldiers in a war zone”
Cause, you know, who cares about howm many Iraqis have died….
November 29th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
tgirsch,
Yep – I’m a fan of Disreali so I won’t argue wiht you on the futility of stats most of the times. But to answer your question yes I’d feel safer in Baghdad or Fallujah. Why? Cause I wouldn’t have to worry about the cops denying me the means of self defense. In chicago or Iraq I could be harmed or even killed, but in Iraq at least I’d have options.
But I must disagree in part – a city’s gun laws can have an effect on the crime rate. That’s merely a reflection fo something deeper. If a city bans civilian ownership of firearms that’s indiciative of a dependent attitude either imposed upon or accepted by the populace, which makes not only individual self defense, but other arguably effective crime prevention strategies difficult to imposible. What I’m saying is that it does send a message to those who would harm someone else. That message is “hey fellas – there’s easy pickins over this way”.
& there are lots of good hotdogs available where a person can defend himself. For example I offer you the samplings available in Myrtle Beach, SC by the Pavilion. (Granted SC isn’t the best state as far as gun laws but it’s a damn sight better than Illinois)
November 29th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
Publicola:
Then you’re an idiot. Sorry, but a duck’s a duck. Even setting aside for the moment the idea that it’s better to be armed in a dangerous place than unarmed in an exponentially safer one, how is your sigarms going to help you when Ahmad detonates a car bomb 15 feet away from you and you’re not expecting it?
In Chicago, your options are essentially one fewer than what you’d have in Iraq, whereas the threats are far greater and more pervasive.
If this is true, I’ve seen no statistical evidence to support it, in either direction. The anti-gunnies haven’t produced numbers that compellingly show that more gun control reduces crime, and the pro-gunnies haven’t produced numbers that compellingly show that less gun control reduces crime. Rhetoric aside, it simply isn’t borne out in the numbers. As an example, if what you’re saying were true, you’d have a hell of a time explaining Toronto and Houston, something I’ve covered here.
Look, I’m actually a gun rights supporter, but gunnies do themselves no favors when they engage in hyperbole like what you’re doing (e.g., unfairly comparing Chicago to Iraq, setting up a false dichotomy between being allowed to carry a gun and being totally defenseless, etc.).
And while I can’t claim to have sampled a S.C. dog (in fact, S.C. is one of only five states East of the Mississippi river where I’ve never set foot), there’s no dog like a Chicago dog. (And believe me, I have no love for Chicago, so it takes a lot for me to say that…)
November 30th, 2005 at 9:47 am
Sigh.
It’s not a matter of intelligence it’s a differing point of view. In Iraq there’d be dangers that I wouldn’t face in Chicago, but I’d also have a little more freedom to chose what measures I take to protect myself. Sure – a Sig isn’t a defense against a car bomber. neither is it a defense against a tornado. That doesn’t mean it isn’t useful, nor does it mean because there is the risk of one of those events beyond our control that it’s safer to be in a place where non-cops are disarmed by the law.
But to thrown in a geeky Star Wars reference – never tell me the odds. See I’d much rather be prepared to be the 1 in 1,000 than just hope that I’m one of the 999 who escape calamity. In short I don’t view odds or stats as eaningful because they don’t mean a damn thing when you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But it is probably my fault that I didn’t make my last point clear.
Gun control does not necessarily cause crime (though logic does tell me it doesn’t do a damn thing to prevent or minimize it) but the underlying attitude that makes gun control acceptable gives crime an easy path. It typifies a reliance on others for protection & that does not make folks think about waling the straight 7 narrow. In fact I’d argue that it encourages crime to a degree. No stats – I base this on simple logic (plus chats with a bunch of criminals I grew up around). If a populace is willing to abrogate their protection then it becomes a matter of avoiding cops – not cops & non-cops. It increases the victim pool & does not discourage confrontational crime. I’d even wager that it encourages it.
& it’s not hyperbole. Again it’s perspective. I really, really don’t like Illinois. Chicago is disliked exponentially in comparison. The reason I don’t like Illinois is that they are presumptuous enough to have very harsh gun laws. Times ten for chicago. hence because of my views I’d feel safer in Iraq. I could live in either place & be fine for years, or I could die in either place the first week. But in Iraq my enemies wouldn’t be wearing badges (for the most part) & calling for back up. That’s how it’d be in chicago cause I wouldn’t obey their laws. besides, in Iraq they worst that they’ll try to do is kill me. In chicago the .gov wants to control me & make my decisions for me. That is worse to me than physical danger. Your mileage may very well vary, but it’s not a question of intelligence. It’s a question of priorities.
Oh, chicago & iraq are apples to oranges. But remember Iraq is a war zone (at least in parts). Per capita the numbers are greater in Iraq. But it’s pretty sad that a city not engaged in a martial occupation with a multi thousand strong (if I recall the estimates correctly) enemy force has more hoicides than we’ve had hostile action caused casualties of soldiers in a country that’s been at war. I don’t believe it’s disingenuous to point that out. Nor would it be disingenuous to take the criminal on criminal violence out of the scene to make a point (though again I generally frown on stats for reasons I think we both agree on).
& it’s not income distribution & population density. Least from what I’ve seen. I think it has more to do with cultural differences. So communal/societal morals instead of income & aceptence/asimilation instead of people per acre are what cause crime – or at least widespread crime. but on of the effects of a culture that is more accepting & thus mor elikely to have higher crime rates & more confrontational types of crime is the degree which they accept or encourage gun control.
Not being able to carry – well in some situations that is akin to being totally defenseless. Soem folks just don’t have the option of physical resistance. Others don’t have the skill or talent. A firearm is the most potent defensive item on the market, & when someone comes at you with one then not having one is, for all practical purposes, being defenseless.
& I admit I’ve never been to chicago. I’ve been through Illinois 5 times. I’ve held the speed limit all the way through & didn’t stop within 10 miles of either border. i really really don’t like the place. But I can assure you that once you’ve had a hot dog in Myrtle Beach you won’t miss those chicago dogs a bit. Plus in Myrtle Beach you get the southern option – corn dogs. golden fried goodness on a stick. & the onion rings.. . Not to mention the seafood. Great. Now I have to go back there soon my damn self.
November 30th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
I keep thinking you can’t possibly be serious, and then I keep realizing that you actually are. If it makes you feel better to call it your “perspective,” that’s all well and good. Just don’t expect me to buy that your perspective has any grounding in reality. You really think they can’t control you in Iraq? Your view of that place is quite rosy, apparently. And you can use your logic and intuition all you want, but you still have to deal with how Houston (lots of homicide despite being very gun-friendly) and Toronto (very little homicide despite being far more anti-gun than Chicago) seem to disprove both in practice.
As to communal/societal morals, they are indeed big factors, but they also tend to correlate quite nicely with population density and income distribution.
And what can I say but that I disagree strongly that no gun = defenseless. Does it deprive you of the best defensive option? Maybe, but it still doesn’t leave you totally defenseless. Just ask my CCW instructor, who’s pretty damn handy with his pocketknife. He’ll tell you a gun’s better, but he’ll also tell you that you’re far from defenseless, even if you’re not carrying.
As to Chicago, it’s a wonderful place to visit and a terrible place to live, depending on what you like. If you like shopping and culture and dining and clubs and museums and planetariums, Chicago’s a great town. If you only care about shooting stuff, not so much.
And they still have the best hot dogs.