Posted on 03/24/2007 9:33:23 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
The acting chief of the Metropolitan Police Department told the D.C. Council yesterday that legalizing guns in the District would lead to an increase in homicides since most killings in the city occur after confrontations or petty disputes.
"My greatest concern is that even a legally registered firearm can get into the wrong hands, and lead to a heartbreaking outcome," Chief Cathy L. Lanier said during a hearing exploring ways to reduce gun violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
There might be a small spike when the bad guys get their numbers reduced. An armed society becomes a polite society.
Dear Chief Lanier.
You ought to be focusing on criminal control rather than gun control.
Dear Chief Cathy L. Lanier,
Shouldn't you be in the kitchen, baking cookies?
It is crap like this that makes me distrust police and government authority in general.
The Parker decision contains three errors in fact, about 11 hillarious insults, and a glaring hole that will be used for an appeal.
Still, we made some progress, dangnabbit.
They always say that, and it it rarely if ever happens. They need to develop new lines; the only thing worse than a tired cliché is one that's been proven wrong.
So, Cathy, when can we expect you to relinquish your firearm? Clearly it's already in the wrong hands...
Well Mary I think it is safe to say that your "nutty" experiment of gun control has failed for the last 30 years. Only a lib could conclude that self defense is nutty.
Let's see...
One friend returned to his Capitol Hill apartment to find an intruder removing his living room stereo. Of course he let the perp go (with the stereo), because he was unarmed.
A favorite college history prof was the victim of an armed home invasion at his Capitol Hill townhouse, and in addition to stealing him blind and threatening to kill him, the two perps beat the heck out of him.
Nope. Law-abiding DC residents don't need guns.
Just when you thought DC couldn't find a dumber Chief than Ramsey.
lead to a heartbreaking outcome,"
Doesn't DC already lead all cities in heartbreking outcomes?
Chief Lanier is more interested in "understanding" and "reaching out" to the criminal element that helped make D.C. the murder capitol of America instead of stopping them via an armed and responsible citizenry. See the tagline.
What was the glaring hole? What were the errors in fact? Do the errors in fact matter (I didn't think that higher review could re-evaluate fact).
Barry was allegedly robbed and beaten by three punks in front of his own home about a year ago.
Since it's virtually impossible to legally own a gun in DC, she is transferring the actions of gun possessing criminals onto the law abiding folks.
Let's also transfer the criminals actions onto the police, then we'll have to take away the police guns too.
/S
Can someone explain to me how this statement parses logically? Because I sure don't get it.
The hole is in the interpretation of "the people". It can be construed to mean local governments (not that I advocate this), and I expect DC to use it in their appeal.
One of the errors was private ownership of cannons, another was a misquote, I forget what the third was. Didn't take notes when I read it.
The insults included things like referring to the gun banners as "entreprenourial scholars" - in other words, liars. That made me laugh.
Do they matter? Depends on who makes the next move.
All you need to know is "Guns Are Bad" and that's how that parses. Got it? The police have spoken.
I think he is saying the riff raff don't know how to behave like civilized people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.