The Daily Caller is noting that we’re not seeing anymore of “What works in Cheyenne may not necessarily work in Chicago,” in the Democratic gun platform. Why? I’m wondering if the Administration doesn’t want people pointing out that Cheyenne has a much much lower crime rate than Chicago, despite the fact that you can carry a gun there without a license.
4 thoughts on “What Works in Cheyenne”
It also goes against the idea of wanting to reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which applied to every part of the country.
Hell, I’m confused as to why they ever tried that, given that Vermont allows unlicensed carry and has for ages – and continually has low violent crime and murder rates.
It’s almost like carrying guns doesn’t make decent folk into murderers or something…
Yeah, well. If they wanted truth in advertising (which I’m really pretty sure they nearly never have) they’d say “What has turned out pretty poorly in Chicago probably wouldn’t be so swell for Cheyenne either.”
I ever hear that from them I’ll think it a rare day indeed.
To be fair, density differences can also explain why what works in Cheyenne might not work in Chicago–but this is the Democrats’ subtle way of saying that they know that the cultural differences between Cheyenne and Chicago are dramatic, and they don’t want to admit that the cesspool of Democratic inner city subculture is not as well-suited to gun ownership as a healthy culture like Cheyenne. (Not just gun ownership, of course: knife ownership, or bottle ownership, or hand ownership, also don’t work well in Chicago.)
Comments are closed.