Why are the shootings in Chicago assumed to be criminal acts?

After every mass shooting, conservative gun nuts descend upon social media like a pack of angry howler monkeys to shout down anyone who makes the obvious connection between more guns and more gun violence.

One of the favorite talking points for gun nuts is to proclaim Chicago. Now... Why do conservative assume the gun violence in Chicago is "Criminal" and not a "DGU"?

DGU stands for Defensive Gun Use and Chicago was the home of the second major 21st century SCOTUS case (McDonald v. Chicago) which redefined the 2nd Amendment as meaning Government can place no limitations on gun ownership.

Of course, the answer is simple; Chicago when used as a rebuttal by gun nuts means Black and conservatives believe all Black People are a priori guilty of crimes ergo any time a black person shoots a gun or even has a gun it is a criminal act.

There is literally no way for any gun nut to know the circumstance of every shooting reported in Chicago, yet every shooting is assumed to be a criminal act. Now you might retort the gun nuts are reading police reports which highlight gang activity or the shooting was a killing over turf or the victim was not the intended target but, that seemingly goes against standard conservative orthodoxy in respect to the government.

Conservatives claim they don't trust the government but, in fact, their trust is merely conditional. When a Police Officer kills a black person conservatives who-heartedly accept the government's accounting of the incident. When the government incarcerates thousands of children in concentration camps, for the temerity of being refugees, conservatives absolutely believe the governments' reports.

Chicago is but one of the man go to "arguments" gun humping lunatics trot out after every mass killing. Video Games, lack of school prayer, mental illness, semi-automatic vs. assault weapon nomenclature gotcha moments also round out their repitoire of bad faith retorts or just outright shamelessness.

If Gun Loons are actually interested in the Liberty of the Second Amendment

Why don't they challenge Fireworks Laws and Ordinances across the country?

Today is the 4th of July. Every June, July and August resident complaints about fireworks skyrocket in my town. Now why is that?

Besides Municipal Ordinances, Illinois still has a multiple laws and regulations in reference to Fireworks; 425 ILCS 30, the Fireworks Regulation Act of Illinois.

Why don't the Lovers of Liberty move to strike down Laws infringing upon fireworks makers and users?

The reason they don't is because most Second Amendment Screamers are witting or unwitting tools for Gun Manufacturers and the Merchants of Death. Fireworks don't make enough $$$ to get the Gun Lobby motivated to file challenges under the False Flag of Defending Rights and Liberty.

By July 9th Illinois has been ordered to have a Concealed Carry Law adopted due to the 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago. In that 5-4 ruling, SCOTUS exercised an INCREDIBLE OVERREACH of BIG GOVERNMENT from UNELECTED JUDGES LEGISLATING from the BENCH, by holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus local, county and state governments have no rights in reference to Guns.

Of course, the word "Gun" appears nowhere in the Second Amendment. And besides the Stare Decisis of "Well Regulated" there is no clear definition of what "Arms shall not be infringed".

Small explosives have long been weapons and components of a military's hardware. By the time the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights, there was already an established tradition of individual soldiers armed with explosives, Grenadiers, as opposed to Fusiliers.

So, it's not cut and dried that Arms refers to Guns. But, what's clear is negligent discharges, unattended guns being used by children to kill children, and unlawful shootings of innocents are going up.

I'm not talking about murders but of these bizarre scenarios such as in an Oakland Wingstop where a Second Amendment Hero murdered two employees:

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said the men in the orange vests came in to order food but ended up running to the freezer section in the back of the restaurant, possibly because they felt threatened by a third party.
At least one of the customers was armed, the sources said, and shot the two employees when they went to the freezer to see why the customers had gone there.