Shawn Ryan set the cop-show bar pretty high with The Shield. Expectations were that his new Chicago Code would be just as gritty and high tension.
If the pilot episode is an example of where Code is headed, it'll be dumped in the river by the fourth or fifth show.
The production values are terrific. Chicago Code looks like a feature film and the city shines. However...
A couple of dum-dum things struck me immediately. A chase scene, wherein the balls-to-the-wall detective instructs his partner to ram their unmarked car into the front of a line of several marked squads chasing the bad guy...is something out of Starsky and Hutch. Pulling up beside the bad guy so the detective can "negotiate" with him was ludicrous; it might have worked with snappier dialogue. "Escorting" the bad guy to see his girlfriend before taking him down . . .would get any real cop fired. Again, had the dialog been better...might have worked. It wasn't and it didn't. It just reminded me of the "Jared" commercial where the football player has tears in his eyes watching the guy propose to his girlfriend.
The main problem with Code...the characters lack motivation and aren't likeable. I have no problem with a female police superintendent...but her sudden desire to establish an anti-corruption squad isn't well enough established in the lame voiceover that opens the show. It's explained, yes, but without heart. The lead detective is so cliche (read cocky and unpleasant), it hurts to watch him struggle through his scenes. McGarrett in Five-O is arrogant, too, but his character is given great dialogue and a cast of equally strong co-stars.
Delroy Lindo, as Code's wicked alderman, has potential. He looks like the Devil in a nice suit. There's a bit at the end of the episode where he instructs his secretary/assistant to "kiss my ear" that's nicely malevolent and tells us a great deal about him.
But when you establish the bad guy as a corrupt politician with life and death power over a city like Chicago, the good guys at least gotta have potential. So far, the rest of the cast gives me no reason to think they have the balls to go up against this guy.
The Shield's pilot hooked me in the opening scenes. Chicago Code has a long way to go.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Should George Be At Lura Lynn's Bedside?
Chicago Tribune columnist Mary Schmich suggests today that convicted former Governor George Ryan be allowed to spend more time with his reportedly dying wife, Lura Lynn.
Ryan is serving time in federal prison. He's been allowed one short visit to her bedside already.
Schmich's column has generated hundreds of comments which, of course, was the intention. Whether she sincerely believes her argument or is making it for the purpose of "sellin' papers" is something only she knows. But she says society isn't punishing George by keeping him from his terribly sick wife, we're punishing her.
The fact that Schmich and so many others care about the lovely former First Lady of Illinois is wonderful. By all accounts, she's led a good life and has been a great wife and mother. And it goes without saying that anyone who is dying deserves to be surrounded by their loved ones.
Unfortunately, through no fault of hers, Lura Lynn Ryan happens to be the wife of someone doing time.
When an individual is convicted of a crime and goes to prison, it's said their family goes to prison with them. It is an unintended but unavoidable cruelty of the criminal justice system. Fallout, some would call it. Collateral damage.
Schmich never explains why she's asking for mercy specifically for Lura Lynn Ryan.
Aren't the ill and suffering spouses of other convicts just as worthy of our concern? If we're going to ask for mercy for Lura Lynn Ryan, let's include all of the mothers and fathers who are dying. All the sons and daughters, too. The grandchildren.
Surely they're just as deserving, aren't they?
Or is it just because Lura Lynn Ryan is the wife of a prominent person that Schmich thinks she should be shown special consideration?
Or maybe she thinks of George as a big ol' teddy bear. When I covered the Illinois General Assembly, George was Speaker of the House. Because of his surly voice and manner, some of us called him "George of the Statehouse," mimicking the cute "George of the Jungle" cartoon and song.
George of the Federal Pen isn't cute. He's well known, but he certainly isn't special nor deserving of any sort of extras. He's a convicted criminal doing time for heinous acts.
And like other convicts, his family, sick or well, good people or bad, must suffer for his actions right alongside him.
Add Lura Lynn Ryan to your prayers, Mary Schmich.
That's the best and only thing we can do for her.
Ryan is serving time in federal prison. He's been allowed one short visit to her bedside already.
Schmich's column has generated hundreds of comments which, of course, was the intention. Whether she sincerely believes her argument or is making it for the purpose of "sellin' papers" is something only she knows. But she says society isn't punishing George by keeping him from his terribly sick wife, we're punishing her.
The fact that Schmich and so many others care about the lovely former First Lady of Illinois is wonderful. By all accounts, she's led a good life and has been a great wife and mother. And it goes without saying that anyone who is dying deserves to be surrounded by their loved ones.
Unfortunately, through no fault of hers, Lura Lynn Ryan happens to be the wife of someone doing time.
When an individual is convicted of a crime and goes to prison, it's said their family goes to prison with them. It is an unintended but unavoidable cruelty of the criminal justice system. Fallout, some would call it. Collateral damage.
Schmich never explains why she's asking for mercy specifically for Lura Lynn Ryan.
Aren't the ill and suffering spouses of other convicts just as worthy of our concern? If we're going to ask for mercy for Lura Lynn Ryan, let's include all of the mothers and fathers who are dying. All the sons and daughters, too. The grandchildren.
Surely they're just as deserving, aren't they?
Or is it just because Lura Lynn Ryan is the wife of a prominent person that Schmich thinks she should be shown special consideration?
Or maybe she thinks of George as a big ol' teddy bear. When I covered the Illinois General Assembly, George was Speaker of the House. Because of his surly voice and manner, some of us called him "George of the Statehouse," mimicking the cute "George of the Jungle" cartoon and song.
George of the Federal Pen isn't cute. He's well known, but he certainly isn't special nor deserving of any sort of extras. He's a convicted criminal doing time for heinous acts.
And like other convicts, his family, sick or well, good people or bad, must suffer for his actions right alongside him.
Add Lura Lynn Ryan to your prayers, Mary Schmich.
That's the best and only thing we can do for her.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
The Politics of Murder
A US Congresswoman is shot in the brain, 6 others are killed including a nine-year old girl and a federal judge and a dozen people wounded in an attack at the most unexpected of all places, a supermarket parking lot.
The immediate response...political finger pointing. The basic argument: hate mongering, both from the left and the right, is partially to blame.
I don't disagree.
I've said it before. We are a society furious with ourselves. Republicans AND Democrats, office-holders and pundits, ramp up the fear and hate while more media outlets than ever in history gleefully repeat their rants in a never-ending cycle of vicious attacks and violent slander.
And we're surprised that some viewers/watchers/readers are reacting with actual violence to what they perceive as a call to arms? When you touch fire to kindling, don't you expect it to ignite?
FBI Director Robert Mueller made the point in a news conference from Tucson today that, by virtue of the internet, "Hate speech is more available to individuals . . .the lone wolves, particularly,...than it was even eight to ten years ago." The Pima County Sheriff concurs, adding that hate speech has a special impact on "people with unbalanced personalities."
Put more directly, whackjobs who used to cover their windows with aluminum foil and scream at their televisions have started packing pistols and acting out in public.
How do you identify those whackjobs? We all know a few. Should we lock them all up? Some unstable individuals certainly should be hospitalized. If they don't appear to pose a danger to themselves or others, good luck. Won't happen. President Ronald Reagan and every administration since has made sure of that.
The obvious kneejerk reaction, then? Keep the nuts from getting guns. An easy and, in some quarters, popular call to make which carries no practical weight whatsoever. Short of banning handguns outright, what would you have lawmakers and gun sellers do?
It would be great if gunshops could install a whackdoodle detector to identify those customers with murderous intent. Some states, such as Illinois, require a waiting period between purchase and acquisition. That certainly helps avoid spur of the moment incidents but patience will out. The shooter in Arizona reportedly bought his handgun in November. No waiting period is that long. If it were, the really determined would . . . wait. Or buy illegally.
Bottom line, no Congress and no state legislature will ever be successful in an effort to ban handgun sales to the public. Just will not happen. And it shouldn't.
Many today have called for better protection for members of Congress and the federal judiciary. Bodyguards, as it were. I imagine we'll hear a great deal about that proposal in the next few weeks, just as we heard calls for better national security in the wake of 9/11. Frankly, it's a great idea but entirely cost prohibitive. Even a notoriously narcissistic Congress will never spend the money. Individual lawmakers may decide to personally take action and hire their own security personnel. It will be a short-lived solution because, frankly, after a few months with no problems and high overhead, they won't want to keep paying the bills. A couple of lawmakers vow to carry guns when they're in their home districts. I hope they're properly trained. Eventually, though, the guns will be left in desk drawers or glove compartments.
So...what's the overall solution. How do we keep such awful things from happening again?
Quick answer...we will do nothing useful. Sure there will be some short term responses and some cosmetic changes.
The fury won't subside. Guns won't go away. Armed guards cost too much.
And a year from now, what happened yesterday, just like 9/11, will be a fading memory.
Until the next time.
The immediate response...political finger pointing. The basic argument: hate mongering, both from the left and the right, is partially to blame.
I don't disagree.
I've said it before. We are a society furious with ourselves. Republicans AND Democrats, office-holders and pundits, ramp up the fear and hate while more media outlets than ever in history gleefully repeat their rants in a never-ending cycle of vicious attacks and violent slander.
And we're surprised that some viewers/watchers/readers are reacting with actual violence to what they perceive as a call to arms? When you touch fire to kindling, don't you expect it to ignite?
FBI Director Robert Mueller made the point in a news conference from Tucson today that, by virtue of the internet, "Hate speech is more available to individuals . . .the lone wolves, particularly,...than it was even eight to ten years ago." The Pima County Sheriff concurs, adding that hate speech has a special impact on "people with unbalanced personalities."
Put more directly, whackjobs who used to cover their windows with aluminum foil and scream at their televisions have started packing pistols and acting out in public.
How do you identify those whackjobs? We all know a few. Should we lock them all up? Some unstable individuals certainly should be hospitalized. If they don't appear to pose a danger to themselves or others, good luck. Won't happen. President Ronald Reagan and every administration since has made sure of that.
The obvious kneejerk reaction, then? Keep the nuts from getting guns. An easy and, in some quarters, popular call to make which carries no practical weight whatsoever. Short of banning handguns outright, what would you have lawmakers and gun sellers do?
It would be great if gunshops could install a whackdoodle detector to identify those customers with murderous intent. Some states, such as Illinois, require a waiting period between purchase and acquisition. That certainly helps avoid spur of the moment incidents but patience will out. The shooter in Arizona reportedly bought his handgun in November. No waiting period is that long. If it were, the really determined would . . . wait. Or buy illegally.
Bottom line, no Congress and no state legislature will ever be successful in an effort to ban handgun sales to the public. Just will not happen. And it shouldn't.
Many today have called for better protection for members of Congress and the federal judiciary. Bodyguards, as it were. I imagine we'll hear a great deal about that proposal in the next few weeks, just as we heard calls for better national security in the wake of 9/11. Frankly, it's a great idea but entirely cost prohibitive. Even a notoriously narcissistic Congress will never spend the money. Individual lawmakers may decide to personally take action and hire their own security personnel. It will be a short-lived solution because, frankly, after a few months with no problems and high overhead, they won't want to keep paying the bills. A couple of lawmakers vow to carry guns when they're in their home districts. I hope they're properly trained. Eventually, though, the guns will be left in desk drawers or glove compartments.
So...what's the overall solution. How do we keep such awful things from happening again?
Quick answer...we will do nothing useful. Sure there will be some short term responses and some cosmetic changes.
The fury won't subside. Guns won't go away. Armed guards cost too much.
And a year from now, what happened yesterday, just like 9/11, will be a fading memory.
Until the next time.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Grief and Respect During the Holidays
This has been an unusual Christmas season. We've lost a few public faces and one from the neighborhood as well.
Ron Santo. Even if you weren't a Cub fan, you couldn't help knowing who he was. I was impressed and touched by the way he handled the way his diabetes ravaged his body. Both legs amputated and yet he continued working, continued cheering his beloved Cubs. He showed courage and grace.
Elizabeth Edwards, who died yesterday at 61. Diagnosed with breast cancer she continued working in her husband's campaigns, first for Vice President and then for President. She dealt with the death of her son. Eventually, she faced her husband's infidelity. An impressive person, she is one of my heroes.
So too was comedian Leslie Nielsen. He came to real celebrity with the movie "Airplane," and followed it with the "Naked Gun" series. Slapstick humor and goofy lines defined him as a guy who embraced his inner clown. He loved silliness, as do I.
My neighbor from across the street died last week, too. Izzy was a quiet fellow with, it's an understatement to say, a loving and devoted family. His death brought literally hundreds of people to our neighborhood to mourn him and comfort his wife, including many of the staff members from the care home where he finished out his days. One of them said she usually never attends the wakes of patients but Izzy's good humor and kindness made him special. I'd known him for twenty-plus years just as someone to visit with at the end of the driveway but I mourn the loss of a friend. He was one of the good guys.
Rest in Peace.
Ron Santo. Even if you weren't a Cub fan, you couldn't help knowing who he was. I was impressed and touched by the way he handled the way his diabetes ravaged his body. Both legs amputated and yet he continued working, continued cheering his beloved Cubs. He showed courage and grace.
Elizabeth Edwards, who died yesterday at 61. Diagnosed with breast cancer she continued working in her husband's campaigns, first for Vice President and then for President. She dealt with the death of her son. Eventually, she faced her husband's infidelity. An impressive person, she is one of my heroes.
So too was comedian Leslie Nielsen. He came to real celebrity with the movie "Airplane," and followed it with the "Naked Gun" series. Slapstick humor and goofy lines defined him as a guy who embraced his inner clown. He loved silliness, as do I.
My neighbor from across the street died last week, too. Izzy was a quiet fellow with, it's an understatement to say, a loving and devoted family. His death brought literally hundreds of people to our neighborhood to mourn him and comfort his wife, including many of the staff members from the care home where he finished out his days. One of them said she usually never attends the wakes of patients but Izzy's good humor and kindness made him special. I'd known him for twenty-plus years just as someone to visit with at the end of the driveway but I mourn the loss of a friend. He was one of the good guys.
Rest in Peace.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Testing The Pat Down
I made a prediction a couple of days after 9/11.
Amidst all the calls for increased security and the public opinion polls that said Americans were ready for more aggressive protocols to keep us safe from another terrorist attack, I said, "Wait a few years. That tune will change."
It certainly has.
From "Don't touch my junk!" t-shirts to the planned "Opt Out Day" Wednesday, the traveling public has expressed the opinion that full-body scanners and pat downs really aren't necessary if they result in inconvenience, embarrassment and the potential for health risks from added x-rays.
Just out of curiosity, and because Kansas City uses private security screeners (as Congressman Joe Mica of Florida wants to see replace TSA at all the nation's busiest airports), I tested out a pat down at Kansas City International Airport yesterday on my way home to Chicago. KCI has full-body scanners but they are only used by the airport's two busiest airlines, Southwest and Delta. I was flying United.
I left a flashlight and a pen in my pockets as I went through the metal detectors. After I "beeped" three times, I was asked to step aside. I assumed the position: standing, hands out to the sides forming a "T." As the security agent frisked me, he explained he was checking my loose clothing for any metal objects I might have forgotten to put in the bin.
The pat-down was fast, semi-professional and didn't appear to draw attention from my fellow passengers. I say semi-professional for two reasons. The agent didn't touch my rear pockets and he wasn't aggressive enough in places where even embarrassed rookie cops in training are aggressive. Had I been wearing a shoulder, belt or ankle holstered weapon, he would have found it. If I'd had a a gun hidden in the area of my groin or a knife in my back pocket, I would have boarded the plane armed.
I watched for about a half hour as about a dozen other passengers were patted down. None voiced an objection. None received more thorough treatment than I. Some were patted only above the waist.
The conclusions I draw from my individual experience are that not all passengers are treated the same way and "pat downs" are not effective if done half-heartedly. I'm sure some security officers do a better job than others. Some do far worse.
Congress is not willing to mandate, nor is the traveling public willing to accept, the cost or inconvenience of truly aggressive security measures carried out by trained anti-terror professionals. The politicians, and the people, have fallen back to believing that, "It won't happen here...again." We all want to get swiftly to our destinations...not wait hours in line. We aren't even willing to trade momentary indignity for better safety.
As a result, Congress has provided unarmed, poorly paid security screeners to do an unpleasant job in the best way they can. The better they do it, the slower the line moves and the more complaints they receive.
As a result, we get TSA and private contractors who, in some highly publicized cases, frisk babies, the elderly, and those in wheelchairs. Colostomy bags break open. Genitals get touched, sometimes harshly. Inappropriate comments are made at indelicate times.
Is there a more efficient way? Not in a country as big, or as opinionated, as ours.
Will the procedures now in place prevent another tragedy? They have so far.
Will there be more complaints, even more lawsuits? Count on it.
Do people feel safer?
Answer that one for yourself.
Amidst all the calls for increased security and the public opinion polls that said Americans were ready for more aggressive protocols to keep us safe from another terrorist attack, I said, "Wait a few years. That tune will change."
It certainly has.
From "Don't touch my junk!" t-shirts to the planned "Opt Out Day" Wednesday, the traveling public has expressed the opinion that full-body scanners and pat downs really aren't necessary if they result in inconvenience, embarrassment and the potential for health risks from added x-rays.
Just out of curiosity, and because Kansas City uses private security screeners (as Congressman Joe Mica of Florida wants to see replace TSA at all the nation's busiest airports), I tested out a pat down at Kansas City International Airport yesterday on my way home to Chicago. KCI has full-body scanners but they are only used by the airport's two busiest airlines, Southwest and Delta. I was flying United.
I left a flashlight and a pen in my pockets as I went through the metal detectors. After I "beeped" three times, I was asked to step aside. I assumed the position: standing, hands out to the sides forming a "T." As the security agent frisked me, he explained he was checking my loose clothing for any metal objects I might have forgotten to put in the bin.
The pat-down was fast, semi-professional and didn't appear to draw attention from my fellow passengers. I say semi-professional for two reasons. The agent didn't touch my rear pockets and he wasn't aggressive enough in places where even embarrassed rookie cops in training are aggressive. Had I been wearing a shoulder, belt or ankle holstered weapon, he would have found it. If I'd had a a gun hidden in the area of my groin or a knife in my back pocket, I would have boarded the plane armed.
I watched for about a half hour as about a dozen other passengers were patted down. None voiced an objection. None received more thorough treatment than I. Some were patted only above the waist.
The conclusions I draw from my individual experience are that not all passengers are treated the same way and "pat downs" are not effective if done half-heartedly. I'm sure some security officers do a better job than others. Some do far worse.
Congress is not willing to mandate, nor is the traveling public willing to accept, the cost or inconvenience of truly aggressive security measures carried out by trained anti-terror professionals. The politicians, and the people, have fallen back to believing that, "It won't happen here...again." We all want to get swiftly to our destinations...not wait hours in line. We aren't even willing to trade momentary indignity for better safety.
As a result, Congress has provided unarmed, poorly paid security screeners to do an unpleasant job in the best way they can. The better they do it, the slower the line moves and the more complaints they receive.
As a result, we get TSA and private contractors who, in some highly publicized cases, frisk babies, the elderly, and those in wheelchairs. Colostomy bags break open. Genitals get touched, sometimes harshly. Inappropriate comments are made at indelicate times.
Is there a more efficient way? Not in a country as big, or as opinionated, as ours.
Will the procedures now in place prevent another tragedy? They have so far.
Will there be more complaints, even more lawsuits? Count on it.
Do people feel safer?
Answer that one for yourself.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Watching the War Through a Medal Winner's Eyes
None of us really gets a sense of what war is about unless we've fought in one or heard a compelling story from someone who has.
Sgt. Sal Giunta is the first living Medal of Honor recepient since Vietnam.
President Obama presented his award yesterday at the White House. He has been interviewed everywhere.
After one has been a cop and then spent time as a reporter covering the harshest kinds of violence this side of a war zone, you realize that real heroes don't bluster. The truly tough guys aren't loud or obnoxious. They don't gladhand a room, perfect a grin for the cameras or offer up snappy soundbites.
Whenever a person is officially lauded for acting "above and beyond," whether a soldier, cop, firefighter or just a dad or mom protecting their family, you seldom hear them speak in terms of "I" unless it's to say, "I was just doing what anyone in that situation would have done."
Real heroes prefer the pronoun "we."
So it comes as no real surprise that Sgt Giunta, who looks like a cross between Tom Hanks and CSI:New York's Gary Sinise, is quiet and humble. His eyes are devastatingly sad because, for all his courage, he was not able to save the life of his best friend. As well spoken as he is, sometimes he repeats part of the interviewer's question to give him time to answer. And most of his answers are simple and to the point, self-effacing without being cool.
He truly doesn't seem to understand why he has been singled out when everything he did in war was accomplished while surrounded by a team of soldiers just as professional as he was. On Sixty Minutes , he told Correspondent Lara Logan, "I don't think I did anything that anyone else I was with wouldn't have done. I was in a position to do it. That was what needed to be done. So that's what I did."
He praises his wife for "being there" for him and for giving him the strength to get through it all.
He misses those who were killed, telling the President during the award ceremony he would give back the Medal of Honor if he could just have his friends with him again.
Sgt Giunta's story, his description of the ambush that led to his nomination for the award, the comments of the other soldiers from his squad who were with him, make for compelling reading and viewing.
No matter how you feel about the U.S. having troops in Afghanistan or about war in general, you should look up the reports online. The Sixty Minutes piece is excellent and his last line in the interview will leave you with a lump in your throat.
He and his buddies fought for us. The very least we can do is listen to their story.
Sgt. Sal Giunta is the first living Medal of Honor recepient since Vietnam.
President Obama presented his award yesterday at the White House. He has been interviewed everywhere.
After one has been a cop and then spent time as a reporter covering the harshest kinds of violence this side of a war zone, you realize that real heroes don't bluster. The truly tough guys aren't loud or obnoxious. They don't gladhand a room, perfect a grin for the cameras or offer up snappy soundbites.
Whenever a person is officially lauded for acting "above and beyond," whether a soldier, cop, firefighter or just a dad or mom protecting their family, you seldom hear them speak in terms of "I" unless it's to say, "I was just doing what anyone in that situation would have done."
Real heroes prefer the pronoun "we."
So it comes as no real surprise that Sgt Giunta, who looks like a cross between Tom Hanks and CSI:New York's Gary Sinise, is quiet and humble. His eyes are devastatingly sad because, for all his courage, he was not able to save the life of his best friend. As well spoken as he is, sometimes he repeats part of the interviewer's question to give him time to answer. And most of his answers are simple and to the point, self-effacing without being cool.
He truly doesn't seem to understand why he has been singled out when everything he did in war was accomplished while surrounded by a team of soldiers just as professional as he was. On Sixty Minutes , he told Correspondent Lara Logan, "I don't think I did anything that anyone else I was with wouldn't have done. I was in a position to do it. That was what needed to be done. So that's what I did."
He praises his wife for "being there" for him and for giving him the strength to get through it all.
He misses those who were killed, telling the President during the award ceremony he would give back the Medal of Honor if he could just have his friends with him again.
Sgt Giunta's story, his description of the ambush that led to his nomination for the award, the comments of the other soldiers from his squad who were with him, make for compelling reading and viewing.
No matter how you feel about the U.S. having troops in Afghanistan or about war in general, you should look up the reports online. The Sixty Minutes piece is excellent and his last line in the interview will leave you with a lump in your throat.
He and his buddies fought for us. The very least we can do is listen to their story.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Following Up Mr. Drive-By
My earlier blog today focused on the facts some politicians and a couple of well-known religious leaders (read that "politicans of the cloth") forget to talk about when they push for tougher Illinois gun laws.
One of the points I raised is that the bad guys, aka the people who spray crowds with machine gun fire and randomly kill little kids and pregnant women, don't pay attention to laws already on the books that are designed to control access to firearms. . . so what would "tougher laws" accomplish? Who would they help (other than the politicians looking for the fear vote, of course)?
Case conveniently in point: Over the weekend, Chicago police acting on a search warrant raided the home of a Hegewisch neighborhood resident. According to the Chicago Tribune web site today, the officers, ". . .discovered five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition . . ."
Did the individual have as required by state law, an Illinois Firearm Owner ID card? No. Is he a licensed Federal Firearms dealer? I'm betting he is not. Did he possess the required permits to own handguns in the city of Chicago? Doubtful.
Guys like him laugh at existing gun laws! So why write more of them?
Some of our elected representatives and other irresponsible fear mongers grab headlines and camera time acting tough to impress their constituents. If they really want results, however, they won't come from "tougher" laws.
We need money to pay the salaries for more tough cops, to work the tough cases and to make the tough arrests that take hauls like "five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition..." off the tough streets.
One of the points I raised is that the bad guys, aka the people who spray crowds with machine gun fire and randomly kill little kids and pregnant women, don't pay attention to laws already on the books that are designed to control access to firearms. . . so what would "tougher laws" accomplish? Who would they help (other than the politicians looking for the fear vote, of course)?
Case conveniently in point: Over the weekend, Chicago police acting on a search warrant raided the home of a Hegewisch neighborhood resident. According to the Chicago Tribune web site today, the officers, ". . .discovered five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition . . ."
Did the individual have as required by state law, an Illinois Firearm Owner ID card? No. Is he a licensed Federal Firearms dealer? I'm betting he is not. Did he possess the required permits to own handguns in the city of Chicago? Doubtful.
Guys like him laugh at existing gun laws! So why write more of them?
Some of our elected representatives and other irresponsible fear mongers grab headlines and camera time acting tough to impress their constituents. If they really want results, however, they won't come from "tougher" laws.
We need money to pay the salaries for more tough cops, to work the tough cases and to make the tough arrests that take hauls like "five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition..." off the tough streets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)