Axelrod blames Chicago gun crime on surrounding areas

He says lax laws in surrounding areas cause the bloody, murderous slaughter ongoing in Chicago.

For example, guns are legal in the Chicago suburb of Aurora, the second largest city in Illinois. The gun crime rate there is a minuscule fraction of Chicago. Why should that be? Guns are legal in in Aurora and there is little crime. Guns are illegal in Chicago and it is a continuous bloodbath.

Or maybe by “surrounding areas” he means Iowa. In Iowa, the homicide rate is less than in the UK and on par with Scandinavia. Yet gun laws are very lax in Iowa. The Brady Campaign gives Iowa an “F” for its gun control effort. Yet there is virtually no gun crime in Iowa.

One wonders, why do lax gun laws have zero effect on crime in Iowa but cause a bloodbath two hundred miles away in Chicago.

It’s a mystery, huh?

Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Axelrod blames Chicago gun crime on surrounding areas

  1. James says:

    I flew into Chicago last year, and chose not to stop for gas in south Chicago. Not even to piss. The gas station/convenience store was surrounded by blacks in hoodies. I got right back on the interstate. I think Axelrod should spend some time unarmed, there.

  2. Roy Ryder says:

    Don’t forget all the Amish roaming in packs like locusts across the midwest. They descend on a town, terrorizing the locals with their loud horses and buggies and brandishing assault plows and other weapons. It’s small wonder that Chicago, with it’s peaceful gangs and colorful inner-city life has fallen prey to violent outside influences.

    • notamobster says:

      πŸ™‚ The hoodrats of Chicago could benefit from some Amish influence, don’t ya think?

      • RevoGirl says:

        What? And become responsible productive members of society? What are you trying to do, decimate the Democratic Party?