Prayer And Action

Click here to vote in this week’s poll.

By Gerard Valentino

Chicago is the center of the gun world as all parties involved in the gun debate in America await the Supreme Court ruling on whether the longtime citywide gun ban is constitutional. Sadly, if there is a city that would benefit from more permissive gun laws for law-abiding citizens it is Chicago.

What many people don’t realize is there have been over 13,000 murders in Chicago since the younger Richard Daley was first elected mayor in 1989.

To put that number in perspective, it means since 1989 Chicago has experienced a 9/11 roughly every 4 years, or one 9/11 for each of Daley’s terms in office.
Few Chicagoans are immune from the violence that has enveloped the city since everyone seemingly has a relative or very close friend that was a victim of violent crime. It is nearly impossible to live in a culture of murder on the scale seen in Chicago without it directly touching each life. Such a staggering level of murder has, sadly, left people immune to crimes that would outrage inhabitants of other cities due to the never ending parade of murder and mayhem.

Although the murder rate has fluctuated over the last few years, Chicago obviously remains one of the most violent cities in America despite some of the most restrictive gun laws.

Unlike other big cities in America, there are places in Chicago that are off-limits to the police because the area is completely controlled by violent drug gangs. Most notable was the infamous Cabrini Green housing project that was so lawless the police refused to patrol unless they had an overwhelming number of officers on hand. Yet, the law-abiding citizens of Cabrini Green were left to face the armed criminal element without a means of self defense.

Mayor Daley has presided over a mini-renaissance of sorts in the city over the last few years and has torn down many of the old housing complexes that were controlled by drug gangs, including Cabrini Green. Large urban renewal projects have reclaimed parts of the city that were derelict and were a haven for criminals. But, that hasn’t made a dent in the murder rate.

Despite all the success, Chicago remains better known for gang and mafia activity than for being a world class tourist destination, offering everything that can be expected of an international city that rivals the best in the world. It is also an eminently livable big city, which makes it a great place to visit and a wonderful place to live.

But one blight on Chicago is considered insurmountable for many who would like to call the city home – a horrific murder rate.

The casual acceptance Chicagoans have for being mugged, raped, robbed or carjacked is startling to anyone not from Chicago, and the fact that murders are treated as commonplace is even more shocking. Someone born in Chicago in 1989 has lived through 13,609 murders. A staggering number that makes up the entire population of many of the small towns that dot the southern part of the state of Illinois.

During his time in office, Mayor Daley has been a staunch proponent of gun control and has often blamed the availability of guns for the city’s violence. But, Chicago has had one of the most restrictive gun bans in place since at least 1982, so entire generations of law-abiding Chicagoans have never known what it’s like to legally keep a handgun in their home for self-defense.

Being disarmed, however, is a feeling foreign to Chicago’s criminal element, which keeps guns at hand without concern for the law.

Chicago’s criminals simply don’t fear committing violent crimes, and that is the reason why, in 2003, Chicago "won" the title of Murder City USA by having the highest per capita murder rate. 2003 was also the beginning of the War in Iraq, and since the war started around 4,400 Americans have been killed either in combat or in accidents.

In the same time period 3,367 murders took place in the city of Chicago.

Just the thought of comparing the death toll in a war zone to that of a major Midwestern American city borders on insanity. But, the never ending drumbeat of death in Chicago is the very definition of insanity, and the fact that law-abiding citizens are barred from owning a gun despite the fact that criminals are armed to the teeth is also an insane proposition.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, 4 of the nation’s 25 most dangerous neighborhoods are in Chicago with Washington Park holding down the number 2 position on the list. No other city on the list had as many neighborhoods on the list as Chicago. Yet, the law-abiding citizens of the most dangerous neighborhoods in America are banned from owning a handgun for self-defense if they are unlucky enough to live in Chicago.

Hopefully, the United States Supreme Court will rule in favor of Chicago’s law-abiding citizens and give them back the right to self defense stolen by people of Mayor Richard Daley’s ilk. Empowering citizens to take responsibly for their own safety and allowing them the means to do so might just change the culture of crime in Chicago. Instead of feasting on unarmed victims, violent thugs will have to consider the risk to their own lives if they talk part in a home invasion.

Laws in America should empower the law-abiding, not common thugs. Yet, in Chicago the opposite is true since murderers, rapist and robbers know that to commit their next crime all they have to do is pick a house at random. Knowing the inhabitants are unarmed, and aren’t a threat, must be a relief for criminals who probably consider attacking a law-abiding citizen the safest part of their job.

Laws in America are supposed to protect honest citizens while creating a mechanism for punishing criminals. Chicago’s gun ban turns that premise upside down by punishing the law-abiding for protecting their home and loved ones from criminal attack.

By thwarting the right of the law-abiding to choose a gun as a tool of self-defense, Chicago’s elected officials have set in motion a series of events that led to a 9/11 in the city every four years. They also have created a generation of fearless criminals that have committed countless crimes free from the fear of meeting an armed victim.

We can only hope the U.S Supreme Court will rule in favor of the law-abiding citizens victimized in Chicago and give them back the ability to refuse to be a victim. To do otherwise is to embrace laws that provide for a criminals’ safe working environment and will set the stage for keeping Chicago a killing field.

Gerard Valentino is a member of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation Board of Directors and his first book, The Valentino Chronicles – Observations of a Middle Class Conservative, is available through the Buckeye Firearms Association store.

By Gerard Valentino

The Ohio media’s opposition stance on changing laws to protect innocent people was inexplicable, until now. In the wake of two separate incidents recently where Toledo retail store workers used firearms to defend against armed robbers, The Toledo Blade has finally come right out and said that society would be a better place if criminals, not honest people, had the upper hand in an armed encounter.

In an appalling show of compassion for lawless thugs, editors at The Blade openly argued that responding to a deadly threat with deadly force is a detriment to society. Only by twisting logic can The Blade make the argument that when a bad guy’s plan to rob defenseless innocent people is thwarted by an honest citizen, the responsibility for the outcome lies with the victim.

Somehow, The Blade wants people to give the thug setting the situation in motion a pass, and instead wants society to pass judgment on an honest person who took their personal safety seriously.

But, at least The Toledo Blade had the guts to finally admit what many already suspected – the editors really prefer Ohioans to be unarmed victims.
From the editorial, entitled "Price of a civil society":

Twice in just the past few days, seemingly bad guys were shot while allegedly attempting to rob Toledo stores. Although we’re glad the robberies were thwarted and thankful no innocents were injured, we’re not sure that store owners and employees defending themselves with deadly force is an absolute good.

…Being robbed at gunpoint is frightening, and we do not presume to judge, as police would say, the righteousness of either shooting. But it must be remembered that robbery is not a capital crime, and it’s only by chance that no one other than the would-be robbers was injured.

(Note: After saying they don’t presuming to judge, they concluded the editorial by saying "it seems to us that when deadly force is used as a first response rather than a last resort, civil society suffers" – i.e. presuming to judge the intended victims as having acted before they had to.)

Claiming that innocent people are to blame for having a gun held to their head wasn’t enough for The Toledo Blade, however, they went one step further and took a play right out of the anti-gun guidebook by using the fear of flying bullets to scare people.

More from the editorial:

Mr. Bilger’s heroism is unquestioned. But what if, in the worst case, it had resulted in the death of the store clerk who was being held at gunpoint? And either gun battle could have ended in the deaths of innocent customers inside or passersby on the sidewalk.

Some people argue that store owners defending themselves will mean fewer robbery attempts. We fear the result might instead be that bad guys will get bigger guns and be quicker to pull the trigger.

And even if it’s true that an armed society is a polite society, we wonder how much collateral damage people will be willing to accept in an arms race to achieve civility through the barrel of a gun.

The "hail of bullets" theory tossed around by The Blade is just another example of anti-gun propaganda masquerading as an argument against private ownership of guns. In both of these cases, nobody but the violent criminal was hurt, and despite the claim that innocent people are going to be gunned down in a "hail of bullets" if a good guy fights back, it remains an incredibly rare occurrence.

What isn’t a rare occurrence is the Ohio establishment media using the anonymous outlet of the editorial page to spout baseless anti-gun rhetoric, and champion policies that protect only criminals.
Just as law enforcement lobbying organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police have never supported laws that give people more responsibility for their own safety, we expect many of the Ohio establishment media outlets to continue to do the same.

The question asked by The Blade editorial board was whether or not people feel safer now that two citizens fought back instead of becoming victims. We know that at least one of the two criminals in question won’t get out on parole again and attack someone else, which has a direct effect on the safety of all law-abiding citizens.

As for the argument that armed victims will only cause robbers to become more trigger-happy, we can once again refute it by looking at trends in states that have had concealed carry longer than Ohio. It used to be the job of professional journalists to research and report in such instances, but when it comes to the gun issue, most would rather use conjecture and hearsay instead of sound journalistic standards. Even a half-hearted attempt at doing so in this case would show that criminals haven’t resorted to higher levels of violence after a few were picked off by armed citizens.

Despite their shoddy journalism being exposed on the gun issue, many establishment media outlets haven’t learned that crying wolf only works for so long. Instead, as each pro-gun reform is suggested and implemented the same cries of wolf are repeated to the point that people are no longer listening, which explains the decrease in readership and ratings for traditional media outlets.

By suggesting that honest people are to blame when attacked by common street trash, however, is a new low, even for The Toledo Blade.

But it isn’t unexpected, as over the years they’ve blamed the gun, society, the police and now finally the victim for the actions of street thugs.

Gerard Valentino is a member of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation Board of Directors and his first book, The Valentino Chronicles – Observations of a Middle Class Conservative, is available through the Buckeye Firearms Association store.

Additional Information:
Local demand for guns rises after Toledo area carryout shootings

Columbus’ NBC affiliate, WCMH, is reporting that another Ohio concealed handgun license-holder was able to protect himself from an attempted robbery.
From the story:

A simple stop at an ATM ended when a local man pulled a gun on a would-be robber.

It occurred around 1 a.m. Tuesday at the Fifth Third bank at 1500 Morse Road, 10TV’s Kevin Landers reported.

Erick Tehoke said he was sitting in his SUV with the window down, when the suspect walked up and told him to hand over all of his money.

Tehoke, a concealed carry weapons permit holder of three months, reached for his gun. The suspect ran.

"I have never had to pull my gun, ever," said Tehoke.

He credits his security guard training for not shooting the man. He said the suspect did not appear to have a weapon.

"I did not see anything that looked like a knife or looked like a gun it was just an instant reaction and I pulled my weapon," said Tehoke.

Police do not have any suspects.

This marks the third publicized incident of self-defense with a handgun in Ohio in less than a week. Last weekend in Toledo, in two separate attempted robberies, the armed robbers had the tables turned on them when a store owner or employee fired back.

A complete list of known incidences involving Ohio CHL-holders defending themselves is available here.

By Gerard Valentino

According to a story published on Toledoonthemove.com the Toledo Police are recommending that women lock their car doors to combat a crime spree in the area that includes violent assaults, robberies, and even a sexual assault.

The story goes on to say that in the latest assault, a woman was attacked on the way to her car after work.

Basically, the Toledo Police are admitting what everyone should already know. It is not the job of the local police, or their responsibility to protect any single individual. Supreme Court rulings confirm that the police cannot be held responsible if a person is attacked, even if there is reason to believe it will happen.

As security experts have said for years, your security is your responsibility. Either you take it seriously or you put yourself at risk.

The goal isn’t to turn your car or home into a fortress, or to avoid people. Instead, you can take some basic precautions that won’t drastically change your life, but will help you and your loved ones live more safely.

One of the most basic precautions is to pay attention to your surroundings. Take note of the people around you, what they look like, and what they’re doing. Are they watching you? Coming toward you? Do they appear to be out of place or threatening? It seems obvious, but when police ask a crime victim to describe what happened, the victim usually says something like, "He came out of nowhere," or "I was attacked before I knew what was happening."

These are the words of people who go about their day oblivious to their environment and provide ideal targets for criminals who prefer surprise attacks.

Another precaution is to trust your instincts. If you’re paying attention and you see someone moving toward you, your gut may tell you the person could be a threat. Listen to your gut. Start walking in another direction. Cross to the other side of the street. Lock your car door immediately and drive away. Do what your gut tells you to do and don’t worry about being "politically correct" or looking foolish if you’re wrong.

Of course, if a criminal wants to attack you, there’s nothing you can do to prevent it. Locking a door or walking away may deter a crime of convenience, but it won’t stop a determined bad guy.

That is why the right to bear arms is such a vital piece of the security puzzle. Once you accept the fact that your security is up to you, not the police, and after you take ordinary precautions to lower your risk, you must ask yourself, "Then what?"

The police carry guns for personal protection. Why? Because they train for every possible violent situation and have tools and tactics to deal with them, but they always ask themselves, "Then what?" That’s because no matter how many ways you have to deal with violence, no matter how careful you are, some criminals will take it to the next level. And if they do, what is the response?

As a citizen, you must ask yourself the same question. Once you exhaust all practical options to avoid a crime, "Then what?"

No one is saying to use a gun to handle every situation, because each situation is different. Gun rights advocates simply fight to make sure all options are available to anyone who decides to take self-defense seriously. If you decide against having a gun, that’s your choice.

However, if you find yourself in a situation where walking away or locking your doors won’t work, and when you admit that the police can’t be there to prevent a crime, then what?

Protecting gun rights means preserving the right to have an immediate and effective answer to that question.