The Real Chicago Pennant Race: Most Gun Violence in the Nation

Thus far this year, Chicago has outpaced both New York and Los Angeles in the break out category of jacked up shooting victims.

To understand just how out of whack the gun violence in Chicago is, first we have to take stock of the populations of these three major metropolitan areas:

• Population of New York City: 8.8 million
• Population of Los Angeles: 4.02 million
• Population of Chicago: 2.72 million

So, Chicago has about 1/4th the population of New York City and 2/3rds the population of Los Angeles. Given the disparity, the truly startling comparison in numbers of gun violence victims leaps out:

• Chicago has racked up 1900 shooting victims
• New York City less than 1000
• Los Angeles less than 1000

If Chicago keeps up the "good" work, by year's end it will have seen nearly 4000 shooting victims, including over 500 killed by gun violence. Think of it: 4000 shot in a population of 2.72 million. This statistic means that, if you live in Chicago, you're chances of being shot this year are BETTER than your chances of winning the Powerball! Obvious progressive solutions to gun violence are already in place in Chicago. Illinois has closely regulated the ability to buy and sell, possess, carry, and use firearms. Chicago adds to the onerous restrictions and has, widely agreed, the most restrictive regime of gun laws in the Nation. And the most severe gun crime problem. We could blame the naughty bullets. Environmentalists are good on that approach. Naughty lead, polluting ground waters. We could blame the powder. Again, environmentalists dislike the cordite smell and smoke of a discharge of a firearm. We could blame the naughty guns themselves. Worst offenders? "Assault weapons," of course, so named NOT because they are more powerful, more deadly, more accurate firearms. Instead, as with any sensible Democrat Party policy, "assault weapons" are that category of guns that "look dangerous." Naughty naughty assault weapons. Perhaps it's the fault of the silhouette target industry. After all, it must be the desensitizing effect of repeated practice firing, on targets that, all too often, bear a striking resemblance to a BLACK man. Naughty silhouette target manufacturers. One thing we must never, ever, do, is to fall victim to the pernicious doctrine of personal responsibility, so often touted by troglodyte fans of a policy throwback to the 18th century: the Second Amendment. No. Gun violence cannot be the fault of those who use guns as part of their trade in crime. Too many questions might arise about who the criminals are, where the criminals are, and why the criminals are. Those uncomfortable questions and their equally uncomfortable answers are mere distractions to the important task of blaming anything and everything except the right thing: bad people.

Former ACLJ Employee: Robertson's Ragamuffin Remark Evinces A Godless Stupidity

Sometimes you just have to "man up."  Sometimes, "manning up" means apologizing for being stunningly, amazingly, incredibly stupid.

Pat Robertson just has to apologize for his offensively stupid and amazingly idiotic remarks this past week.

On the 700 Club program on July 31, Pat Robertson spoke about poverty and contraception.  He touted the importance of birth control to population control as an important affect of humanity.  Ben Johnson, at LifeSiteNews has reported:

On today's episode of the 700 Club, a woman asked whether the use of birth control is sinful, something about which Catholics and Protestants disagree.

When Robertson's co-host, Wendy Griffith, said not all families could afford to have multiple children, Robertson replied, “That's the big problem, especially in Appalachia. They don't know about birth control. They just keep having babies.”

“You see a string of all these little ragamuffins, and not enough food to eat and so on,” he said, “and it's desperate poverty.”

“I'd say yes, birth control is absolutely an important thing for people to use,” he added, saying contraception “is a very important part of humanity.”

Robertson said that “birth control in the Protestant churches has always been permitted,” because they “feel that the care and rearing of children is a tremendous obligation.”

Robertson heartlessly concludes that contraception had an laudable value in the moral hierarchy.  But why?  Well, and there's not polishing this immoral apple of thought:  because contraception can suppress the number of Appalachian ragamuffins.  Robertson's comments reveal a chasmic distance between the heart of Robertson and the heart of God.

It wants noting, as well, that Robertson's assertions are flawed for other reasons.

First, the "Protestant" Church has not always, or uniformly, approved of contraception. 

Second, Natural Family Planning is not a violation of the Old Testament.  It certainly does not replicate the sin of Onan.  Nor does it equate with the levitical prohibition on sexual relations during menstruation, as Robertson implied.

Robertson's remarks are triply offensive. 

First, for their historic dishonesty -- the Protestant Church has not always approved of birth control (unless "always" is limited to mean "as long as Pat has been around."  Second, for their mischaracterization of Natural Family Planning -- baselessly portraying Natural Family Planning as some sort of Catholic plot to drive men and women into a lifetime of menstrual intercourse.  Third, for their heartless inhumanity -- making out the sons and daughters of impoverished Appalachia as drags and anchors on their families.

That last offense and sin strikes harder and cries louder:  it is so distant from the love of Christ, who rebuked His own disciples and warned them, "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven."  Indeed, Robertson seems to have drunk a very old elixir of Malthusian kool aid.  For me, when malthusians burp their crap onto the social stage, I find no more soothing salve than a short passage of Dickens that eviscerates their heartless spiel:

``Spirit,'' said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, ``tell me if Tiny Tim will live.''

``I see a vacant seat,'' replied the Ghost, ``in the poor chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, the child will die.''

``No, no,'' said Scrooge. ``Oh, no, kind Spirit! say he will be spared.''

``If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race,'' returned the Ghost, ``will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.''

Scrooge hung his head to hear his wn words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief.  

``Man,'' said the Ghost, ``if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. Oh God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!''

Scrooge bent before the Ghost's rebuke, and trembling cast his eyes upon the ground. 

It remains to be seen whether Robertson will have the humility to "bend before the Ghost's rebuke, and trembling cast his eyes upon the ground."