Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Washington Times says DC Headed for Disaster on Semi-Auto handgun ban

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...simple-on-guns

    EDITORIAL: Keep it simple on guns



    The District's gun ban had prohibited residents from registering handguns and keeping them in the city. Immediately after the ban was imposed in 1976, the homicide rate dropped and it has leveled off in recent years, after peaking in 1991.

    The District government appears to be headed for disaster as it prepares to craft policies to regulate handgun registration and licensing in response to the Supreme Court's decision declaring unconstitutional the city's absolute ban.

    A hearing last week clearly showed that most members on the D.C. City Council want regulations tailored to discourage, to the point of infringement, the ownership of guns. That isn't surprising considering the handgun ban lasted 32 years, but the city's legislative body should get used to the new limits. Any regulations they pass will likely be the subject of a court action if they go too far.

    The current idea is to legalize only revolvers and not semiautomatic pistols. This makes little sense. The notion that because the majority of criminals use semiautomatics to commit crimes, law-abiding citizens shouldn't have them is backwards thinking. Phil Mendelson, chairman of the Judiciary Committee admitted that the legislation introduced during the July 1 session was full of holes and unanswered questions.

    The first hurdle is deciding how the city should change current law, and the easy answer is to simply repeal the ban. The second is determining how far the city should go in regulating how guns are stored and secured in the home, whether they will require the use of trigger locks or some other apparatus to secure the gun. Here the answer is clearly "no." How will they ever enforce that policy? If a homeowner shoots an intruder, are the police really going to be running around the house looking for a trigger lock?

    Council members also want to look at a requirement that all handguns undergo a ballistic imprint or gun fingerprinting with the intent of helping solve gun crimes. There is already evidence that this is ineffective.

    The Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division, in January 2005, issued a report on that state's gun fingerprint policy calling for its termination. "There have been no crime investigations that have been enhanced or expedited through the use of [Maryland Integrated Ballistics Identification System] MD-IBIS," the report said. "The program simply has not met the expectations and does not aid in the Mission statement of the Department of State Police." It would be foolish for the city to waste the more than $2.5 million our neighbors did on this system.

    There also seems to be some idea that the city is going to be allowed to make residents wait indefinitely to receive their registrations. The city should set a time certain from when a gun is submitted for registration to when the registration is issued. They are already making it difficult by setting up registration hours at the Metropolitan Police Districts from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. every day and from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesdays. Aside from the time issues, should people untrained in handling firearms be bringing them into the police station?

    Which brings us to the last point. Requiring people to take gun safety and usage courses is a good idea, but it isn't one that the council came up with. Go figure.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Salem, ,
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Immediately after the ban was imposed in 1976, the homicide rate dropped and it has leveled off in recent years, after peaking in 1991.
    What dreck. According to http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm , no such thing happened. Per capita violent crime increased steadily from 1976 to 1981 and never retreated below 1976 levels until 2005.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    Here's an idea: no restrictions, no registrations, no rules. Hey Vermont, what's your most violent city? Alaska, how about you? Has anybody ever heard of a dangerous place to be in Vermont or Alaska? I'm sure there are not-so-great neighborhoods in those states, but they aren't very well known, and their crime rate is surely lower than the ones you HAVE heard of.Wonder why that is? And yet the most dangerous places seem to be in states that have the worst gun laws. Chicago, LA, North Hollywood, New York, Detroit,and ESPECIALLY DC.

    I don't understand why people in the media and Washington can't seem to grasp these ideas. They all seem like common sense to me.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Salem, ,
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    At the risk of a total thread hijack, I believe the reason some people think restrictions are the answer is because they have a distorted view of humanity. They are believers in aristocracy or at best bigots. I have slightly more regard for the merely foolish who have not thought hard enough yet.

    It doesn't really matter if they come to their conclusions via intuition and emotion or by empirical logic. Correct conclusions can be reached either way. We on this board seem to think the antis are always emotion driven and unthinking but I feel very strongly about my self defense rights, and many a despot has logically concluded that a disarmed populace was to their advantage.

    So what then is the problem? It lies in the words despot, aristocrat, slave, and in the mind that can conceive as right such things existing. They believe that some are created better than others. It upsets their view of the natural order when common people have the power to stand free, they can not conceive that regulation of the masses by the elite is undesirable.

    When instead some of us plebeians have the audacity to suggest regulation by our freely elected peers, and then only when absolutely necessary, it frightens them. Add the power of arms and We the People are a terror.

    C.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maryville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    WhiteRabbit22 wrote:
    Here's an idea: no restrictions, no registrations, no rules. Hey Vermont, what's your most violent city? Alaska, how about you? Has anybody ever heard of a dangerous place to be in Vermont or Alaska? I'm sure there are not-so-great neighborhoods in those states, but they aren't very well known, and their crime rate is surely lower than the ones you HAVE heard of.Wonder why that is? And yet the most dangerous places seem to be in states that have the worst gun laws. Chicago, LA, North Hollywood, New York, Detroit,and ESPECIALLY DC.

    I don't understand why people in the media and Washington can't seem to grasp these ideas. They all seem like common sense to me.
    I'm with you on that, we need vermont carry nationwide. Most states now have shall issue, maybe now is the time to take the next step.

  6. #6
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    WhiteRabbit22 wrote:
    Here's an idea: no restrictions, no registrations, no rules. Hey Vermont, what's your most violent city? Alaska, how about you? Has anybody ever heard of a dangerous place to be in Vermont or Alaska? I'm sure there are not-so-great neighborhoods in those states, but they aren't very well known, and their crime rate is surely lower than the ones you HAVE heard of.Wonder why that is? And yet the most dangerous places seem to be in states that have the worst gun laws. Chicago, LA, North Hollywood, New York, Detroit,and ESPECIALLY DC.

    I don't understand why people in the media and Washington can't seem to grasp these ideas. They all seem like common sense to me.
    They know the facts, they're ignoring them. These people are trying to collapse the economy as well. They think if the economy collapses, then there will be chaos and then they can bring in the military to disarm every citizen and remake this country into the socialist eutopia they desire. Well, I won't be around to see it, 'cause they ain't gettin' guns without a gunfight.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    So much talk, Rod. There were armed, law-abiding citizens in New Orleans, LA during the Katrina/Rita hurricane disasters who were harming no one, yet the police and national guard came and forcibly took their weapons using registration lists. They were not compensated, either.

    This amounts to an out-of-control government disarming their citizens for their convenience. Would YOU have taken on a Bradley with a mounted M2 machine gun?
    How about armed police officers? Both? Neither did they. All of those citizens surrendered without a fight.

    I know I'm new here, but I've been active in pro-gun groups for many years. I've been lurking and reading for some time now and while I agree with many that registration lists should be outlawed and private property rights respected more, I also am a pragmatist and I know that they will never go away. And the blatant disarming of law-abiding citizens in New Orleans was just a practice run for disarmament on a larger scale.

    Ever hear of Operation Falcon? It was a quiet federal roundup of wanted men and women. This is also a practice run for federal roundups of "undesirables". Including gun owners. The President now has the authority to declare martial law and federalize the National Guard. The power has not yet been exercised, but it will one day. Probably, the justification will be safety of the population in question, law and order, anti-terrorism, or something like that. We will be disarmed "for our own good".

    I read this as "for THEIR own good", as ordinary people with guns are no threat to anyone. The government hasn't forgotten the Revolution. They know that if they get too far out of line, they will have to face an armed population who is very angry. Even though the government controls the military and far greater firepower than you and I can muster, I believe that many soldiers will refuse to enforce an unconstitutional order, as they have sworn to do.

    I fear for the American people.

    Brian


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •