What does he mean by 'what works in Chicago'?

Over at the National Gun Rights Examiner, David Codrea has been taking a good, long look at "The Lightworker's" assertion, in reference to gun laws, that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." David quite correctly points out, though, the fallacy of this position.

And we saw one other major disconnect: Despite his assurances that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," made no doubt to convince detached and dull-witted gun owners that he posed no threat, every one of his policy proposals would apply nationwide, across the board.

All the proposed new gun laws presented in the Obama administration's "urban policy" would be federal gun laws--applicable, in other words, in both Cheyenne and Chicago, and everywhere else in the country, as well.

It's a good, important point, and David makes it well. It occurs to me, though, that there's something else about the "what works in Chicago . . . " idea that's worthy of a look--what does he mean by "what works in Chicago . . . "?

"Works" to accomplish what? Produce the "murder capital of the U.S."? Is this what Obama means by gun laws "working" in Chicago?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or . . . you get the idea.

Not only does Obama, contrary to his campaign promises, advocate forcing upon Cheyenne residents the same approach to violent crime as he apparently supports for Chicago, it's an approach that is demonstrably an utter failure, even in Chicago.

If that's what "works" in your estimation, Mr. President, you can keep the "change."