Later this month DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier will put about 30 officers on the streets to try and make a dent in the thousands of illegal handguns that are being used in violent crime in the District.
Homicides are up seven percent this year. Assaults with guns have escalated. Chief Lanier was quoted recently as saying "It's ridiculous. There are too many guns out there".
When, oh when will our Nation's Capitol implement some "common sense gun control"?
Oh, wait...
4 comments:
"D.C. Gun Ban Violated..."
Dis, youse call news? ;o)
Heh.
Gee, David, are you saying that criminals break the law? :>
Of course, my town has far more guns per-capita than DC does, as do many other towns that aren't yet social engineering experiments supported by the Crime Lobby. Our murder rate is one per 123 years. (And that one murder was forty years ago.)
Even on a national scale, millions of guns were sold every year, through the rising violent crime trend of the early 90s, and through the falling crime trend of the late 90s and earlier this decade -- which includes the ten year period occupied by the completely ineffective "Assault Weapon Ban".
Rather than admit the failure of social engineering, they create a false metric of progress, then report irrelevant numbers later. (If the number's aren't big enough, they'll look for an anomalously large clump, and use that to forecast the results in other areas.)
If there are so many guns on the street, and they're all "illegal guns" (like they know the difference), shouldn't it be like shooting fish in a barrel to get real arrests and convictions?
The obvious response is to pass more gun laws. Every time a gun law is violated, another gun law needs to be enacted to enable the healing process.
DWLawson, you are absolutely right! Let's see, what do we have left after this...
It's against the law to commit crime.
It's against the law to use a gun in the commission of a crime.
Guns are banned from purchase by criminals.
Guns are banned from purchase by mentally ill people.
Regular (second-class) citizens in DC are banned from possessing a gun.
For good measure, regular (second-class) citizens are also forbidden from carrying a gun into certain government-owned buildings, or within so many feet of a school.
Gee, what's left after that? Oh right! Gun bans aren't really total bans, but an attempt -- guided by ignorance and bigotry -- to disarm those one finds undesirable. Those practicing the wrong religion, for example, or of the wrong heritage... and of course, those who hold different political views.
Suppose a power-hungry political class has spent many decades nurturing a class of living votes, giving them special protections and gifts from the treasury, so that they would eternally remain wards of the state.
(And imagine the panic when this plan goes haywire, the special class self-destructing -- failing to deliver even political support of the lever-throwing kind -- and its protectors still swearing loyalty to the system while gaming it for their own benefit. Better to blame someone else!)
A dependent class would certainly be worth defending against a lesser class of citizen, who feel no obligation to work through the complex socially-correct government, need little protection, and vote indifferently to the desires of their self-proclaimed authorities.
If they were consistent about the use of guns or the effect the number guns has on society -- or even sincere in their use of the word ban -- they would also have to:
Disarm all the security personnel that shadow the politicians.
Disarm the police.
Disarm any military bases in the area.
Guns are too much of a "public safety" hazard to defend lives, or to (gasp!) stop crime. The more guns are out on the streets, the more crime occurs. Right?
Post a Comment