Stats prove gun ban in D.C. Ineffective

[Lady Di]

When will the freedom haters learn that guns are NOT the problem? Here are the stats to prove it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201818.html

[Bill of Rights]

Um... I don't quite see how a link to Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue publicly praying for rain has to do with guns being or not being the problem. Maybe this was not quite the link you intended, Lady Di?

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

Thanks for pointing out the error, St. Michael. The correct link is now posted. :D

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks, Lady Di.

The most telling comment in the whole article about a bill that was signed into local ordinance in DC in 1976, ostensibly to respond to public fears about crime and criminals is this:

Marion Barry (D), a council member then as now and a supporter of the bill, put it bluntly at the time: "What we are doing today will not take one gun out of the hands of one criminal."

OK, so let's recap, shall we?
People are scared.
People are scared of crime and criminals and gun violence.
New city gov't of social welfare-types say they're in touch with the people.
They pass a bill hoping to initiate change to outlaw handguns nationally.
Barry supported the bill then despite his prophetic comment.
Barry supports the bill now, despite his prediction coming true.
Violence has gotten worse.
People are still scared of crime, criminals, and gun violence.

And the city is fighting to keep this unConstitutional ban WHY???

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

It seems to me that a whole lot of the problem we have all across the country stems from one, simple but aggravating misconception:

"It's a pretty common-sense idea that the more guns there are around, the more gun violence you'll have," D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer said."

This is a seductively attractive, yet totally false idea. Of course, if there were no guns, there would be no gun violence. But, that doesn't mean that more guns equals more violence. More guns just means more guns. A violent criminal can only shoot one gun at a time. So, as long as that criminal can find that "one gun," it doesn't matter if there are a hundred or a hundred thousand other guns in the neighborhood. It's the number of criminals that matters, not the number of guns.

[Lady Di]

And the city is fighting to keep this unConstitutional ban WHY???



It's all about symbolism over substance, St. Michael. The sheeple need something to make them FEEL safer even if the reality of it is that they are in more danger. If the sheeple FEEL safer, the politicians will be re-elected. This is why we need more statesmen, not politicians. We continue to blame politicians for the faulty legislation, but I say the people deserve much of the blame. We're the ones putting these clowns into office. This is why education is vital if we're ever to restore liberty and freedom to the Republic. Sites like this one will make a difference.

[junglebob]

According to the article in 1976 63% of homicides in D.C. Were shootings. The murder rate was 23.5 per 100,000 In 1977 the first full year of the ban the rate was 26 per 100,000. Last year (2005?) 81% of homicides were shootings. The 2005 rate was 35 per 100,000 the national rate had dropped to 5.6 from 9.5% the previous year.

Wow homicides by shootings up 30% after their gun ban legislation goes into effect. Looks like the criminals had more unarmed victims. Think about it even if there were no shooting related homicides and they only had the 19% done by other means they would have still been 19% higher than the national average. That of course assumes if your favored means of killing someone is to shoot them you won't use a knife, baseball bat, hammer, box cutter or some other means if you couldn't get a gun.

Why didn't murders in Florida skyrocket when they passed concealed carry instead of go down. I'm sure there were a number of people buying handguns who didn't have them before they could get carry permits. The criminals there learned fast, they started targeting tourists who were less likely to be armed. Maybe they were surprised by some tourist in a car with Illinois plates who had a non-resident Florida permit, (we Illinoisans aren't all defenseless when we travel) but it was a safer bet than going after a Floridian!

[Bill of Rights]

And the city is fighting to keep this unConstitutional ban WHY???



It's all about symbolism over substance, St. Michael. The sheeple need something to make them FEEL safer even if the reality of it is that they are in more danger. If the sheeple FEEL safer, the politicians will be re-elected. This is why we need more statesmen, not politicians. We continue to blame politicians for the faulty legislation, but I say the people deserve much of the blame. We're the ones putting these clowns into office. This is why education is vital if we're ever to restore liberty and freedom to the Republic. Sites like this one will make a difference.

(sigh) I know this, Lady Di, and I suppose I wasn't very clear in what I intended to be a rhetorical Q, pointing out the total falsehood of the claim that it was to make people saferhttp://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/St-Michael/loco.gif, which lie Mr. Barry actually had the cojones to eschew even back then. Of course, he's pretty well locked into politics at this point, since he cannot (legally), anywhere in the country, own a firearm again, so he has to depend on taxpayer-funded bodyguards for his safety. (Felony convictions for cocaine use have a nasty habit of doing that to a person.)

My point was simply that with Barry acknowledging from the outset that it wouldn't stop any criminals, it would seem to me (and hopefully to any reasonable, logical person) that a known pointless gesture should be avoided if one that may actually do some good is possible.

A man was on his knees, looking around the ground under a streetlight when another came upon him. "What'd you lose?", he asked.
"My contact lens. I can't see to drive home without it."
As people always do in such circumstances, the second man knelt down and started looking as well. After a few minutes, he asked, "Where were you when you lost it?
The first man pointed into the darkness, "Over there,about 20 yards or so, near that park bench."
The second man exploded, "Why on earth are you looking over here when you lost the contact over there?
The first man answered, "The light's better here."

All right, so it's an old joke and it's not very funny, but it does a nice job of making the point:

Do what works!http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/St-Michael/duh.gif

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

[(sigh) I know this, Lady Di, and I suppose I wasn't very clear in what I intended to be a rhetorical Q, pointing out the total falsehood of the claim that it was to make people

You did a great job communicating your points and in making yourself perfectly clear, St. Michael. I just saw an opportunity to add my two cents worth. Do I get any change back? :lol:

[Bill of Rights]

I just saw an opportunity to add my two cents worth. Do I get any change back? :lol:

Sure. A penny for your thoughts.

:D

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

I keep coming back to the idea that irrational gun ban laws must make some sense at some level. Otherwise, they simply wouldn't happen. That leads me to the notion that even though they are pointless and ineffective as deterrents to crime and violence in general, gun ban laws may offer some personal comfort to the politicians who advocate them. And, that conforms to the reasoning of the framers of the constitution who saw the 2nd Amendment as the peoples' last resort against tyranny. Politicians regularly stand in front of crowds, making themselves the center of attention. They know that at any given time, about half of the people disagree with what they are saying and doing. I think a lot of the impetus behind gun ban laws stems from politicians' personal fear of the people. They know that they are often lying through their teeth, and they hesitate to do that in front of an armed audience.

[Bill of Rights]

So rather than an altruistic desire and motivation to help people, they do what they do solely out of "motivated self-interest"?

If I've understood you correctly and you've evaluated it correctly, and I think both are true, what we have here is folks hired to do a job who've forgotten that that job, generally speaking, is "public servant".
We have an election in about one year. I suggest that we each do our part to remind our legislators that we expect them to do the job they were hired to do, not the job they want to do/feel like doing.

I know I will.

Blessings,
M