When a CNN Sports Dolt Tries to Explain Chicago’s Gun Problem With Laughable Results

CNN sports writer LZ Granderson tried to write a serious column about Chicago’s gun ban laws and only ended up making himself look foolish for the effort. This is what happens when sports dorks try to think on subjects outside their silly, inconsequential world of sports.

With his columns, “When a City’s Gun Laws Get Shot Down,” it seems that Granderson was trying desperately to make sense of the failure of Chicago’s gun ban to keep the city safe and it appears that he is supportive of taking away American’s Second Amendment rights merely by local government fiat. Yet even as he seemed to support gun bans, nearly every word he wrote proves that gun bans don’t work.

Sadly, after reading his mush of a column, it is almost impossible to figure out what they heck this guy’s point is supposed to be. but it does show that he is not capable of logically thinking through a problem and writing a cogent discussion of that issue.

Granderson begins relating the story of a young man who was murdered by a robber on Chicago’s south side, then he mentions the fact that Chicago’s gun ban was thrown out by a federal court and the city told it had to lift its ban on gun stores. Granderson notes the judge’s ruling that gun bans don’t work and then says there is “an obvious flaw in [the judge's] logic.”

The sports guy then goes on to note that many of the guns that are used in crime in the city of Chicago come from outside the city. He throws around a bunch of statistics to sound like he’s smart, I guess, showing where all the guns are coming from.

But, one is hard pressed to get what “flaw” Granderson sees in the judge’s logic that gun bans don’t work. Clearly Granderson doesn’t seem to understand how to make an argument.

This dopey sports geek writes, “It is disingenuous for gun rights advocates to dismiss the effectiveness of a city’s gun ban without acknowledging that guns are coming into the city from other areas, including the suburbs, making it easy for criminals to game the system.”

Yes, it is true that Chicago’s gun ban didn’t work. The judge was right. It is also true that the gun ban failed in part because the criminals just imported the guns from elsewhere. But that isn’t a “flaw” in the judge’s logic, Mr. Granderson. That is a flaw in the Chicago gun ban, the law you seem to support.

The flaw is in you, Granderson, not the judge.

However, Granderson is right in one respect. A ban in one city while everywhere else has no ban is stupid for just the very reason described; people just get their guns elsewhere and bring them into the ban area.

But, if Granderson wants to talk “logic” his column leads to only one conclusion and that is that he thinks guns should be banned everywhere so that Chicago’s gun ban can work. Naturally, Granderson doesn’t have the stones to stipulate this conclusion in uncertain terms. But that really is where he leads readers in the end.

Like all simpletons, Granderson sees a black and white world. In his little child’s world, a ban on all guns would mean that all murders would miraculously disappear. Granderson should look to countries where guns have been banned to see if his simpleminded solution works.

He’ll find it doesn’t.

Gun bans don’t work. Period. And that isn’t even to mention that gun bans violate the U.S. Constitution–as judges are increasingly finding.

Also going to Granderson’s simplemindedness is the fact that he quite conveniently discusses a Constitutional issue without once addressing the fact that it is a Constitutional issue.

This column does lead to a final conclusion, though. Mr. Granderson should stick to the inconsequential world of sports and leave the heavy thinking to those more suited to it.

TSA Claims It Took 5 Guns A Day From Passengers, But Are We Safer?
How The Democrats are Lying About Huckabee's 'Women's Libido' Comment
  • jim_m

    It’s Granderson not Gunderson.

    HotAir does a thorough take down of his foolishness.

    The left believes that the reason that gun bans don’t work is that they have not been applied correctly (once again, it isn’t the policy that failed it was only that they did not implement it in a sufficiently totalitarian manner).

    The left wants a global ban on guns so that no one anywhere can ever oppose a corrupt government. That is their end game. They will never stop.

    • warnertoddhuston

      Oops, I’ll correct that. In my defense, I hate sports and never heard of this guy until today.

    • alanstorm

      Ah, yes, the “Do it again, but HARDER!” argument.

      Always a winner with LIVs.

    • Constitution First

      Bingo!
      The prime reason for the second amendment was that the citizenry never become unarmed. Why? Defense and protection, perhaps a little intimidation factor, from a Tyrannical Government; it helps ensure the government follows the will of the people.

      You will know the exact day the government no longer feels beholden to the people, they will no longer fear us. They will have no reason to.

      By Progressives complaining so loudly and bitterly about decades long falling gun crime rates speaks volumes as to their motivation:
      Power, Money, Societal Control.

  • stan25

    Leave it to someone that does not know what the hell he is talking about. I’ll even bet he got his sports reporting job through affirmative action. If people want to talk about a subject, they should at least know what is going on. But like all lefties, they think that they are far more intelligent than Joe Six pack. Just because he has a sheepskin from Harvard, Yale or Princeton, that does not make him any smarter than everyone else.

  • LiberalNightmare

    To the left, there is no proof that is sufficient to challenge their policies.

    The fact that people are still dying from gun violence despite the most restrictive gun laws just means that the laws need to be stricter. Banning guns in Chicago didn’t work? No problem, We’ll just ban guns in Illinois. That didn’t work? No problem, just ban guns in the tri-state area. And so on and so on.

    It isn’t just guns either, the same liberal rule-set applies to global warming, welfare, electric light bulbs and whatever becomes the next liberal boogeyman.

    .

  • GarandFan

    Perhaps Granderson can explain violent crime stats in Britain and Australia. They banned guns. According to a study done at a university in the Netherlands, the Brit and Aussie VIOLENT crime rates are higher than that of the US.
    Go figure.

    • alanstorm

      Well, yes, there’s more violent crime, but it doesn’t involve as many guns, so it’s better…somehow.

      Liberal Logic at its finest.

      • jim_m

        Gun crime actually went up in the UK after the ban

        Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

        When you know people are going to be defenseless there is no longer any deterrent to crime.

  • GarandFan

    Perhaps Granderson can explain violent crime stats in Britain and Australia. They banned guns. According to a study done at a university in the Netherlands, the Brit and Aussie VIOLENT crime rates are higher than that of the US.
    Go figure.

  • 914

    Gun bans work about as well as ObamasCare Granderson. Which is to say they have an equal and negative effect on all who are subjected to them.

  • 914

    By the way. The dreadlocks are not working with the suit and pink shirt .

  • Lawrence Westlake

    The scary thing here is that Granderson is no less retarded than a substantial majority of elected Democrat politicos.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE