Gun Control and Newtown vs. Chicago: and the difference is?
Just asking. but why was the tipping point the Newtown shootings that prompted President Obama to appoint Joe Biden to lead the Administration’s efforts to curb gun violence.
“We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage? That the politics are too hard?”
Really, Mr. President. To date, in Chicago, there have been 2805 homicides in Chicago, of which 1989 or 71% were Black who died. Of the 2805, 1% were between the ages of 5-11; 18% between 15-20; 23% between 20-25.
During the summer, the President came to Chicago to attend several election fundraisers, but not once during his time here did he ever meet with “community organizers,” the Mayor, the Police Chief, concerned members of the community. It was reported that during one of his visits, one could hear the sounds of gunfire near the President’s Kenwood resident. And yet, the President remained silent.
It took the actions of a psychotic 20-year old with a history of mental instability, who killed 20 innocent children and six adults to finally get Obama to speak up. But what really is the difference, except age and race, that makes the loss of their young lives any less tragic than the kids and young adults killed on the streets in Chicago. Is it the innocence of the young children vs. the drug runner or gang member? Is it the smallness and quaintness of the town of Newtown vs. the rough and tumble South and West sides of Chicago.
There should be no difference. Murder is murder. Whether the victim is an adorable child from a New England town or a battle-scarred gang member, outrage and the willingness to do something about the violence must come from heart and head, the parents, the community, not from the political stage of theater. As Rahm says, never let a good crisis go to waste. And the President isn’t.