Part of this post was adapted from a column I wrote last year.
Citizens are walking around Virginia with unconcealed weapons. Apparently, this is how it happened. After the changes in the law, the murder rate in Virginia decreased dramatically. One is allowed to carry unconcealed weapons in VA, but you must apply for a permit to carry concealed.
For the record, in 2003, the homicide rate in Virginia, where guns are legal, was 5.52 per 100,000. The homicide rate in D.C., where guns are illegal, was 45.8 in 2002. The District’s gun laws do nothing to deter crime and everything to keep the homicide rate the highest in the nation.
In 1976, the visionaries on the D.C. Council passed a law prohibiting the sale of new guns. The laws also prohibit anyone from bringing a handgun into the District or transporting one through the city unless you’re a cop or federal officer.
This scheme was conjured up as a way to prevent criminals from getting guns. Since enactment of the law 28 years ago, the murder rate in the District has risen 134 percent.
According to the U.S. Constitution, Americans have an individual right, not a collective one, to keep and to bear arms. That right is a personal one and subject only to reasonable regulation. The District’s gun laws are an unreasonable and outright violation of the Second Amendment (annotated).
Reminiscent of the days of human bondage in America, black, law-abiding citizens are once again denied their constitutional right to bear arms. Can an argument be made that D.C. gun laws also violate the Thirteenth “Badges of Slavery” Amendment?
At one time or another in America’s history, blacks have been stripped of the freedom of movement, association and expression. Before the Civil War, they were prohibited from owning firearms for fear of slave rebellions, and because they were not citizens under the law. After the abolition of slavery in 1863, whites continued to make black ownership of firearms difficult by charging excessively high taxes.
The Black Codes, laws set up after the Civil War, continued to restrict the rights of newly freed slaves to own firearms, own or rent farmland, vote, sit on juries, testify against white men, sue and enter into contracts. As de facto slavery, the purpose of the Codes was to maintain the white hierarchy. Some things never die. What dies are the rights of people to protect themselves.
A study by John Lott, a Yale University professor, found that concealed carry laws deter violent crimes. Lott’s study also found that when states pass concealed handgun laws, the percentage of black crime victims decreases. Numerous other studies show that blacks are victims of violent crime at a disproportionate rate and the perpetrators are disproportionately black.
While the criminals in the District are violating their neighbors, potential victims would be outlaws if they tried to defend themselves. When people are allowed to defend themselves with guns, crime drops. To buy the liberal myth that guns cause crime is to be stripped of what might be the only chance for protection.
The D.C. Council bought the myth back in 1976 by failing to comprehend that criminals are criminals; they commit crimes. Council members apparently thought that, although laws against murder don’t deter criminals from committing murder, laws against possessing guns might deter them from possessing guns.
No gun law anywhere will ever prevent a thug from being a thug. Criminals are resourceful. They benefit the most from gun laws: fewer armed victims. The District’s gangbangers know that law-abiding citizens — prime targets — probably won’t be carrying guns. This is what happens when liberals run a city. The lunatics have free rein over the asylum.
SafeStreetsDC.com
“Defenseless in D.C.”
John Lott on international gun control
Virginia Citizens Defense League
GunCite.com (gun control - pro/con)
If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
Comment by likwidshoe — 08.22.04 @ 9:10 pm
The knowledge that home’s may have guns is a deterrent to breakins when it appears the residence is occupied. This protects even those who do not actually own firearms. It is crazy to have laws that keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens no mtter what their ethnicity or area in which they live. Criminals do not obey the laws, so in effect the criminals are protected and the good people are placed at greater risk.
Comment by Pat in NC — 09.30.04 @ 10:30 am
You make some good arguments for relaxing D.C.’s gun laws. The Second Amendment is not the strongest, specifically considering that D.C. is not a state, and has never had a militia (we always relied on the National Guard). But besides that, there are different interpretations of the amendment, and I think the Supreme Court is still against the individual’s rights theory.
I would want to see a much more comprehensive study of gun violence, and what works to reduce it and what does not (I will look at Mr. Lott’s study). But certainly the numbers make your case well. The problem I have is that looking at the murders that happen, they are typically street crimes - but between people who know each other (as opposed to random violence). While many times we don’t know the details of what happened in murder cases, I am assuming that if you allow easier access to the guns (it is obvious the gun ban does not actually prevent criminals from getting guns, just makes it a bit more difficult) then you increase the gun ‘warfare’ on the streets. This would result in more gun deaths in fights, and deaths of innocent bystanders. On the flip side, you might end up with more stand-offs where both sides have guns, so neither shoots. Then there is the issue of non-deadly violent crime, typically against women. This could be an even stronger argument for allowing handguns, as a way of women being able to protect themselves.
Anyway, I do think it is a debate worth having.
Comment by Rollins — 09.30.04 @ 5:42 pm
Hi Rollins - I was trying to figure out where your comment was. The archives are devoid of comments because I switched from Blogger to WordPress in July, and I couldn’t figure out how to import.
You’re correct about the 2nd amendment argument, but why not give it all you’ve got?
I think the strongest argument for allowing guns is defense. The criminals in DC know that because of the ban, their potential victim probably won’t have a gun. I don’t like that.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.30.04 @ 5:59 pm
Rollins,
), robbery, burglary etc, are all lower in areas with legal access to guns.
You are right in thinking that the non-gun crimes are very much influenced by the legality of guns. Assaults, rape (in some areas they are listed as the same thing
The UK and Australia have outlawed most guns, and look at their crime rates since. Home invasion was a nearly unknown crime ‘down under’ before the ban, and now it is rising each year.
For drug/gang violence, I don’t know if you’d see an increase in gun fights if the law-abiding citizens also had guns. The shoot outs are happening between already armed criminals, and legal guns won’t increase their number. I wanted to buy a Glock-20 for protection and range shooting, but even if I could get the permit here in NJ, the licenses, fees and tarrifs make the gun far more expensive than it is worth to me now. But I know for a fact (my gf is a public defender) that I can go into Camden or Philadelphia and buy the same gun in an alley way for less than $100. That’s if I don’t mind the risk of getting rolled or arrested, and if I don’t mind a couple of bodies that might be tied to that gun.
now, when I was a govt. employee, I carried concealed and when I went into some neighborhoods, the rough element knew that men like me were armed (we made sure to let things buldge). I was never molested. Some of my more liberal coworkers (we were democrats, so I guess we all were, to some extent) who refused to carry were harrased on a good day, and more than one had a purse snatched or a wallet taken, until only a few of us would go to certain places if it meant going alone or after dark.
Even if it became easier to buy a gun here (or at all in DC), it will still cost the honest citizen more than the street price.
On the drug front, what you will see less of is junkies terrorizing the neighborhood, breaking/entering and mugging to support their habit. And the drug pushers will think twice before waving their rods around to scare the civilians. After all, a gun is no where near as impressive or powerful when the other guy has one as well.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.30.04 @ 6:09 pm
Is Social Security like Slavery?
La Shawn Barber takes up a question asked by Star Parker:
Whenever citizens are prevented from doing something (like keeping the money they earn), the government is exerting its control. In the case of prohibiting murder or injury to another, it 
Trackback by Different River — 02.17.05 @ 6:22 pm