Comments on: Packing Heat In VA/Defenseless In DC

By: Different River

Different River — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:22:28 +0000

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, itâ€…

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:09:34 +0000

Rollins,
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 ), robbery, burglary etc, are all lower in areas with legal access to guns.
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.

By: La Shawn

La Shawn — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:59:15 +0000

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.

By: Rollins

Rollins — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:42:56 +0000

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.

By: Pat in NC

Pat in NC — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:30:28 +0000

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.

By: likwidshoe

likwidshoe — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 01:10:30 +0000

If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.