Washington DC Gun Ban A Deadly Failure

Gun Owners News ^ | April 2003 | Larry Pratt

[robowombat]

Washington DC Gun Ban A Deadly Failure by Larry Pratt The official website of the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington DC says, among other things, that the MPD "protects District residents from crime, fear of crime, and general disorder and establishes trust and respect within the community." Why turn to the Comedy Channel when you can get lines like this for free?

How bad is crime in our Nation's capital? It's so bad that even the far-left Washington Post has repeatedly complained about it. In a recent editorial (1/11/03), the Post says: "The District of Columbia closed out 2002 with a record of violence that should have city leaders and residents worried sick... the District racked up 262 killings last year, the highest death toll in five years."

In another editorial (1/25/03), the Post says the Mayor of Washington DC, its Police Chief and other DC leaders "are badly misreading the mood of the city if they think there isn't general anxiety about the level of crime in the District... last year's 12 percent increase in homicides and the current pace of murders, which is nearly on par with last year's, are sufficient reason for rising public concern."

And in his column in the Post (3/01/03) -- titled "What About The War At Home?" -- Colbert I. King, writing about the "terror" being experienced by residents of Washington DC, says: "Homicides are up again this year. Broad-daylight and nighttime horrors -- callous shootings, murderers are running free -- occur with such frequency and so often without consequence that some people are no longer inclined to come forward."

So, what does the Post say is the cause of this rampant violent crime problem? Well, we're told, editorially (1/11/03), that: "Experts are still trying to sort out the reasons." But, "clearly the prevalence of handguns -- and people willing to use them -- has a great deal to do with it."

Hmmmmm. Interesting. Because, in so many words, the ultra-liberal Washington Post is now admitting, in effect, that what's being proved, with a vengeance, in Washington DC, is -- that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!

But, of course, the Post doesn't get it. In an editorial (8/5/02), the Post says: "We believe in strong gun laws." Well, the District of Columbia, for more than 25 years, has had "strong gun laws" which make it, de facto, impossible for any of the good guys to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The result? Re-read the previously mentioned excerpts from Post editorials and that King column.

The plain, obvious truth is that the Washington DC anti-self defense laws have been a dangerous flop as far as curbing crimes committed by people with guns. And -- God bless him -- at least one DC cop was honest enough years ago to admit this. An editorial in the Washington Times (3/27/96) quotes Lt. Lowell Duckett, president of the Black Police Caucus and a special assistant to Washington DC's Chief of Police, as telling a group of citizens they were right to arm themselves:

"Gun control has not worked in DC. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith and Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed."

Even the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) -- unwittingly, to be sure -- has admitted that gun-control in Washington DC has failed. On an "Operation Ceasefire" web page, the ATF says, in part: "The District of Columbia has the strictest set of local firearms laws in the country.... And yet, even by the most conservative estimates, thousands of illegal firearms continue to be present in the District every day, and firearms-related violence exacts a terrible and continuing toll on the lives of the people who live and work in the city."

According to data posted on the website of the Hamilton Fish Institute, in 1997, in the District of Columbia, even 10.6 percent of high school students carried a gun somewhere in Washington DC during the previous 30 days.

But, there's some good news about gun control in the District of Columbia and I'll be reporting on it in my next few columns. Despite the fact that the gun-grabbers have thus far succeeded in disarming private citizens in Washington DC, some of these citizens are fighting back and asserting their Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. I'll tell you about several DC residents who have gone to court to challenge the city's gun-ban. And I'll introduce you to one courageous lady on the DC Taxicab Commission who is working hard to make it legal for cabbies to be armed for self-defense.

In addition, in my next few columns, I'll be naming names and exposing the arguments of those in Washington DC, and their allies, who want to continue the DC gun-ban even though this subjects citizens to murder and a variety of other violent crimes.

There may be hope, even in Washington.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[robowombat]

Since the liberal media are having a holiday with the Meridian, Ms shootings I thought this would inject a small dose of common sense on the subject of gun ownership and use.If you ever doubted the liberats had an agenda please on private gun ownership please note this classic Wash Compost editorial comment

So, what does the Post say is the cause of this rampant violent crime problem? Well, we're told, editorially (1/11/03), that: "Experts are still trying to sort out the reasons." But, "clearly the prevalence of handguns -- and people willing to use them -- has a great deal to do with it."

[Support Free Republic]

50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund is then due. The team is about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopps them and decrees that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness. After all,if the refunds are made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the wealthiest ticket holders. That would be unconscionable!

Free Republic

Your donations keep us fighting liberals

[RRWCC]

AHHH Again everyone missed the point!
It's not the gun laws in D.C. that is the problem; it's the fact that the rest of the country doesn't have them! (Sarcasm INTENDED)

EXACTLY why I have avoided D.C. Any place that only wants the criminals armed is a place to AVOID!

But on the other hand, if I was voting to steal as much money from so many people as congress does, I would want them unarmed too! (Humor intended)

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

If you're robbed -- shoot the robber.

If a cop tries to arrest you for having a gun -- (your call on this one. I know what I'd do).

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[Dr Warmoose]

Since the liberal media are having a holiday with the Meridian, Ms shootings

I lay odds that Lockheed has a company policy that prohibits their employees from packing heat while on company property or while on company time. I wonder if some shyster laywer can file a lawsuit against Lockheed because the company policy unnecessarily placed at risk those who would normally carry a firearm for self-defense. If the company feels that the employee should not be responsibile for his own safety, then it would seem that the company is either aiding and abetting the shooter in guarenteeing a safe workplace for murderers (no fear of armed retaliation), or the company is prepared to assume all responsibility.

[TheEngineer]

I wonder if some shyster laywer can file a lawsuit against Lockheed because the company policy unnecessarily placed at risk those who would normally carry a firearm for self-defense. If the company feels that the employee should not be responsibile for his own safety, then it would seem that the company is either aiding and abetting the shooter in guarenteeing a safe workplace for murderers (no fear of armed retaliation), or the company is prepared to assume all responsibility.

Forget for a moment that it's Lockheed, and pretend that you're a small business owner. Do you want your employees to carry guns into your business?... Maybe your business is also your home? As a business owner, you would certainly have the right to allow gun-carrying into your business.

I, on the other hand, don't want my employees bringing guns into my office. Seems to me that the owner of the business should be allowed to make his own rules in this situation... without having to worry about getting sued after a shooting.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

"Seems to me that the owner of the business should be allowed to make his own rules in this situation... without having to worry about getting sued after a shooting."

If your rules indirectly cause the deaths of your employees, why shouldn't you be sued? You can be sued if your rules disregard industrial safety laws.

Lockheed should have ditched this creep a long time ago and should have hired armed security to watch out for the jerk, at the very least. If the union prevented Lockheed from doing this, the union needs to get its a$$ sued.

[Shooter 2.5]

"I, on the other hand, don't want my employees bringing guns into my office.

You either need better employees that you can trust or they need a better boss that they can trust.

You mentioned an office. In manufacturing, there are machines that cost milions of dollars and the operators of those machines have to be trusted not to harm other employees. A person who can't be trusted with a .38 certainly can't be trusted with a forktruck or a crane, just to mention two machines that are in most factories or warehouses.

[TheEngineer]

If your rules indirectly cause the deaths of your employees, why shouldn't you be sued?

If you allow guns in the workplace and this happens, then you'd get sued. If you don't allow guns in the workplace and this happens, then you'd get sued.

Oddly enough, you are trying to lay blame on the business-owner... not the perp. Reminds me of people trying to blame (and sue) the gun manufacturers instead of the actual perp.

[SwinneySwitch]

"... the District racked up 262 killings last year, the highest death toll in five years."

Obviously caused by "selected" Republican President G.W. Bush!/sarcasm

[TheEngineer]

You either need better employees that you can trust or they need a better boss that they can trust.

My employees are not allowed to smoke in the office, and they are not allowed to bring weapons onto the premises. These are some of the rules at the business/property that I own. If someone doesn't like it, they are free to not take the job.

Each Lockheed employee knew the rules (and therefore the risks) when each took his job, and yet each chose to take the job anyway. Also, defense contractors like Lockheed have armed security guards. So I don't see where Lockheed's no-weapons-on-premises rule is cause for a lawsuit here.

[opus86]

"MPD protects District residents from crime"

This statement is so ridiculous yet I often hear people repeat similar sentiments..."It's the cops' job to protect us." It cannot possibly be the job of the police to protect people. Their primary focus is to uphold the law. Whatever protection may result from that is good, but it cannot be their main objective.

[Shooter 2.5]

It sounds like you don't trust your employess which is your Right to do so. Too bad.

[FreedomCalls]

I, on the other hand, don't want my employees bringing guns into my office.

Before I reply I have a few questions.

Do you allow security guards to carry guns in your office?

Do you allow armored car employees to carry guns in your office?

Do you allow policemen to carry guns in your office?

If the answer to all of the above is "no" than I have no problem with your policy as you are at least consistent. If on the other hand, you believe that some animals are more equal than others, then I think you are being hypocritical in excluding concealed handgun license holders (who may have more training and experience in handling weapons than any of the above) but allowing these people to carry on your premises.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

If a robber shoots at me and someone else attempts to try and stop ME from shooting back, you can bet I'm gunna be pissed at that person after I shoot the robber.

Personally, I hate lawyers and strict tort liability. I also hate PC company policies that rely on feel-good "sensitivity training" when confronted with a violent employee who threatens to shoot fellow employees. I had a coworker like that and I and my coworker went straight to the cops over the objections of a wimp supervisor.

[xring]

Right on the mark. I would encourage any employee of mine who has a CCW permit to carry concealed in my place of business.

[xring]

Wouldn't catch me working for you.

[Eaker]

I agree that a business owner has a right to ban guns from his premises. Not the parking lot, just the premises. I also feel that he should have well trained armed security inside to protect the employees and the same caliber of security to patrol the parking lot to protect my car from break ins so my gun isn't stolen.

Or if he hires sane competent employees then he has nothing to worry about. We with concealed carry permits are not more dangerous at work than we are anywhere else. Which is not very dangerous unless threatened with grave bodily harm.

I carry at work when I feel like it. It is called concealed carry for a reason. Further, everyone at the office has seen my website and still don't fear me. Ironically I work for an engineering firm.

But, this is Texas.

Eaker

[tgslTakoma]

"MPD protects District residents from crime"

This statement is so ridiculous yet I often hear people repeat similar sentiments..."It's the cops' job to protect us." It cannot possibly be the job of the police to protect people. Their primary focus is to uphold the law. Whatever protection may result from that is good, but it cannot be their main objective.

Not only is that statement ridiculous, but in a court case in DC many years ago the court ruled that the police did not have a responsibility to protect the individual citizen. IIRC, two(?) women sued the PD for not protecting them from being victimized in a violent crime (a home invasion, multiple rapes over many hours that the bad guys held the woment hostage in their home - I think that's how the story went). The particulars are all very hazy now, and all my "gun stories" books are inaccessible right now...

In any case, Washington, DC is a beautiful city for the most part, and was my dad's birthplace and childhood home. But I will not consider living in DC until they restore their citizens' right to own, possess and use firearms for self defense.