Washington Post and D.C. Gun Ban's Effectiveness

[RoadkingLarry]

"

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.

How do any of us manage to survive the carnage of a gun show?

 

[Prof. A. Wickwire]

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

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

These statements use the same logic and have the same validity.

Any comments Linda?

Sincerely,

Prof. A. Wickwire

 

[K-Romulus]

I was surprised- it was a pretty well balanced article. At least the Post writer didn't pull a Matthew Miller and claim that "all the evidence shows more guns = more deaths."

On it's heels is an editorial today:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111302061_pf.html

Take the Gun Case
The District waits to find out whether its ban will become the nation's Second Amendment battleground.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007; A18

THE SUPREME Court yesterday stayed silent on whether it will hear a challenge concerning the constitutionality of the District's gun ban. In doing so on a day when they were expected to announce their plans, the justices kept alive the possibility that they will hear the appeal. But their inaction also suggests that they are split over how to handle it.

A likely sticking point is on how broadly the justices should rule on the District's challenge if they grant review. Should they use the case to decide whether the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to bear arms -- a ruling that would have ramifications for the entire country? Or, because the District is a unique jurisdictional animal -- neither state nor city -- should the justices tailor the question before them to force a narrow ruling that applies only to it?

There are risks for the District either way. Unlike on many other hot-button issues such as abortion or affirmative action, the court has not spoken on such a fundamental Second Amendment matter since 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, a case in which the defendants invoked the Second Amendment to challenge their convictions for transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines. The court found that argument meritless because such a weapon would not have been suitable for militia use. While this and other language in the Miller opinion bolster the District's argument that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right to bear arms, other parts leave a different impression. More recently, the intellectual momentum in legal and academic circles has run toward recognizing an individual right.

Even in the face of such risks and even with conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of gun bans in reducing homicides, we would urge the justices to take the case. If they decline to do so, it would leave intact the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that struck down the D.C. gun ban. That decision conflicts with rulings from nine other federal appeals courts concluding that the Second Amendment recognizes only the "collective" right of a state to organize a militia.

The justices could follow the lead of Appeals Court Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who wrote in her dissent in the D.C. gun case that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District because it is not a state. While such a narrow ruling could help salvage the gun ban, it could have negative consequences for the District in other contexts.

But the District's gun ban need not be invalidated even if the justices find an individual right in the Second Amendment. All rights -- from free speech to the right to assemble -- are subject to limits and regulation. So, too, should a right to bear arms.

Of course, there are comments allowed on the site.

 

[Henry Bowman]

As deadly as some years have been, she said, "what we don't know is what our rates would have been without the ban."

If we take them at their word that it is proper to consider "what might have been," then we must also add to the equation the number of lives that might have been protected by guns in the hands of the right people.

 

[Robert Hairless]

"I know people are looking for some showing that our homicide rates have gone down to zero and that we no longer have any handguns in the District as a result of this law," said Singer, the city's attorney general. "But you can never judge the success of a law enforcement initiative on whether you've brought it down to zero."

This poor woman is delusional. She believes that the rate of violent crime in the District has decreased since and because of its draconian firearms laws but not yet to the point of zero.

The District of Columbia relies too much on the old adage that "Nothing succeeds like failure."

 

[Baba Louie]

...in U.S. v. Miller, a case in which the defendants invoked the Second Amendment to challenge their convictions for transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines. The court found that argument meritless because such a weapon would not have been suitable for militia use.

All this time I thought they ruled that they didn't KNOW if a short barrelled shotgun could be a militia weapon and remanded the case back... which was never done due to... technicalities. Like a death in the defendant's family or something.

 

[ArmedBear]

Compared to D.C., sort of. D.C. has about 9.5k/sq.mi., LA has about 7.5k/sq.mi.

Not just the density, the area as well... LA has 4 million people, D.C. has 600k. 500sq.mi. for LA, 70sq.mi. for D.C.

Anyway, compare that to the third example, Tucson, with only 3k/sq.mi.

They just don't seem like proper comparisons to me, even if they do, on the surface, help our argument.

So wait, you're suggesting that a 25% increase in population density leads to a 250% increase in murder rate?

Clearly, then the solution to violent crime is zoning laws! (Last time that was tried, it had some, well, racial overtones, though, and the civil rights movement put the kibosh on it...)

The reason I picked LA and Tucson, though, is that, whereas handguns in the hands of the law-abiding are banned in DC, they're pretty common in LA, despite sundry restrictions, registration of sorts, etc. LA is "middle of the road", gun-wise, for a US city. In Tucson, my example of the other extreme, the gun shops have bridal registries.

 

[littlegator]

Clearly, then the solution to violent crime is zoning laws!

Man, that there's an interesting can of worms. New zoning restrictions based on gun ownership. I can also see the affect that will have on political gerrymandering. It would be like putting a bunch of gun owners in a leper colony - CCW colonies. Imagine how safe the place would be. I'm in.

 

[ArmedBear]

Look, if you use GIS and map out violent crime and other statistics in a US city geographically, we all know what at least some of the correlations would be.

Nobody wants to admit it, or, politically, EVER mention it.

Now I understand that correlation doesn't imply causation. But politicians never want to say that, either, for various reasons.

The reason California has anti-gun laws is nearly 100% because of ethnic gang violence, or the fear thereof. But nobody even wants to talk about it. It's easier to blame guns than it is to look at what are truly complex problems, with complex solutions, especially when their very mention raises the ire of some professional loudmouths.

Much of LA is a peaceful place, where you can go out at any hour, day or night, and have a good time. But there are neighborhoods where you just don't go, ever, if you have a brain in your head. The streets are ruled by gangs. However, nobody wants to talk about the problems in any real terms, and even less, to try to solve them. It's easier to pander, blame guns and any other emotional lightning rod that has nothing to do with root causes, throw a few bucks at people, and let the NEXT mayor try and figure out what to do.

 

[PTK]

ArmedBear, I was just babbling and theorizing. I drank too much, give me a break.

 

[Warren]

It's the barrel shrouds, just outlaw those and everything will be perfect.

With all that government you would think that D.C. would be an absolute paradise, eh?

 

[ArmedBear]

Hell, PTK, I hope you understand that there's a humorous intent to my posts here.

The whole subject (DC's gun bans being effective against violent crime) is so insane, it deserves little besides laughter!

 

[ROMAK IV]

The DC ban is like the ATF. There was a show on ABC a number of years ago called "Feds", it didn't last long. Anyway, the very first episode, there was the BATF staking out a High School and arrresting a guy who was selling guns to students from the back of his car. I never watched anything so hilarious. and they were serious about it!! They pass these "laws" and just sit around and harass the citizens. They aren't really enforced, THEY ARE NEVER ENFORCED! When the crime goes up in spite (actually because of the law) of the law, they just call for stricter gun control laws which aren't enforced either. Most of the gun control laws aren't really enforcable anyway, but trhey striil keep writing and passing them. Clinton signed the Brady Bill in 1994. Soon after thousands of people were denied purchases becuase they were ineligible to own firearms. Some of them were ex-felons. Did they go and arrest those people? Of course not! Clinton also signed a federal law allowing an individual to be charged with a federal crime, were they to be caught commiting a crime with a firearm. This carried a 10 year mandatory sentence. Did they use it? Of course not. Clinton wanted to pass a retroactiv lifetime ban on firearm ownership for misdemeanor domestic violence, ban gun shows, require the NRa to submit list of members to the federal government, ect. If you study the problem, you will realize that: The purpose of Gun Control Laws is to take guns from citizens, Not do anything about crime!

 

[Grey54956]

"We don't want to panic people," said a D.C. police captain at the time, "but they should beware that if they get into an altercation with a stranger, there's a distinct possibility he may be carrying a gun."

I love that quote. In cities and states with CCW, the quote would be:

"We don't want to panic criminals," said a police captain at the time, "but they should beware that if they get into an altercation with a citizen, there's a distinct possibility he or she may be carrying a gun, and may put a cap in someone's a**."

 

[Strings]

>All this time I thought they ruled that they didn't KNOW if a short barrelled shotgun could be a militia weapon and remanded the case back... which was never done due to... technicalities. Like a death in the defendant's family or something.<

IIRC, the death was the defendant's...

 

[camacho]

All in all, it appears that the mainstream, left-leaning media no longer fanatically defends the notion the gun bans are panacea for crime prevention. The idea that maybe the availability of firearms does not cause crime has been creeping in their minds. They are not ready yet to proclaim the utter fallacy of the overall "guns=crime" scheme, but they are starting to concede here and there that not everything is perfect with the aforementioned notion.

 

[FTA84]

"They aren't really enforced, THEY ARE NEVER ENFORCED! When the crime goes up in spite (actually because of the law) of the law, they just call for stricter gun control laws which aren't enforced either."

It is obvious why they are not (cannot be) enforced. Who here would volunteer to go arrest a violent felon who has a gun? Who would want to do it on a regular basis for civil service pay rates?

What kind of criminal would want to rob a house where the owner has a gun and the right to use it? What kind of criminal would do this on a regular basis for pawn shop rates?

 

[AlaskaErik]

The ban is effective in preventing law abiding citizens from defending themselves. Other than that, it's pretty useless.