brooklynite (71,468 posts)
Merrick Garland heading to Chicago to tackle surging gun violence
Source: Politico
Attorney General Merrick Garland is heading to his hometown of Chicago on Thursday to signal the Biden administration’s commitment to reining in the surge of gun violence plaguing many of America’s biggest cities.
Garland is set to unveil a set of new gun “strike forces” aimed at shutting down the pipelines of guns being illegally trafficked into urban centers, but his visit is sure to be received with some skepticism as just the latest policy pronouncement from Washington. Shootings in the Windy City have seemed out of control for years, particularly in the summer.
Last weekend, 56 people were shot in Chicago; 11 of them fatally. Over the Fourth of July weekend, at least 108 people were shot with at least 17 people killed, according to the Chicago Tribune.
"We are redoubling our efforts as ATF works with law enforcement to track the movement of illegal firearms used in violent crimes," Garland said in a statement. "These strike forces enable sustained coordination across multiple jurisdictions to help disrupt the worst gun trafficking corridors."
More DUmmy sophistry about Chicago gun violenceThe DUmmy canon as it relates to Chicago gun violence is that there would be NO gun violence if white people from Indiana would stop essentially shipping crates of guns there and forcing people to carry them and kill each other.
That is the only way to interpret crap like this:
Star Member PortTack (20,551 posts)
1. Illinois has some of the best gun laws in the nation...we have this shitty neighbor..Indiana
Where most of the guns used in these crimes came from
Which is, again, the DUmmy canon.
We are meant to believe one of two things:
1. People in Chicago (by this I mean mostly young black men, of course) would love to shoot and kill each other without end, and they would, but for the restrictive local gun laws. "
I would blow your head off," they imagine gangsters say, "
so consider yourself lucky that there are such restrictive gun laws here in Chicago. But for handguns being frowned upon by the law, I would have one or more of them, and at that point I would bust a great many caps in your ass, and you would die forthwith, and my troubles with you would be over."
OR
2. People in Chicago (by this I mean mostly young black men, of course) have no desire whatsoever to shoot anyone with a gun, irrespective of the restrictive gun laws. It's just the well-known bloodthirsty white people in Indiana who are cynically and cruelly forcing guns on the youth of Chicago, and are then demanding that these young men take to the streets to slaughter each other. "
See here," the DUmmies imagine gangsters saying to each other, "
I am keen to settle our differences logically and peacefully. But earlier I was accosted by a man from Indiana who thrust a semiautomatic pistol in my hand and demanded I kill one or more people. Now, we all know one another to do what we are told, so I have no choice but to smoke yo' ass with this Nine, which will render my issues with you not exactly solved, you see, but moot. Yet at the same time I will have fulfilled the demand of the man from Indiana that I kill one or more people, so on balance we have made some progress after all."
Naturally, this is insane: young black men are destroying much of Chicago without a care in the world and with no plans to stop, and they get their own guns and make their own decisions. I would simply like to know which of the two scenarios above the DUmmies reckon best describes the situation.
Lurkers: which is it?