Washington DC prohibited possession of guns by individuals a few years ago and now has the highest homicide rate in the country.
San Franscisco is attempting to follow suit, or try to.
Why would they want to make the individual citizens vulnerable and give criminals the advantage?
Because “they” are by definition intent on nefarious plans aimed at depriving citizens of their rights – the one fact on which extremists at all limits of the political spectrum are agreed.
In point of fact, gun control advocates suggest that strong limits be placed on guns, precisely with the idea of keeping them out of the hands of criminals or potential criminals, while allowing the peacable citizen with no hot temper the privilege of holding a license to possess firearms.
Their intent, of course, is to cut down on crime.
I have said before and will repeat, that conditions in differing parts of the country – and even in differing parts of individual states – are sufficiently diverse that no one-size-fits-all policy with regard to guns, whether it be total Second Amendment freedom or anything from that to making them illegal except for military and police use, is ever going to work.
I lived for a few months in an apartment building with certifiably insane crack users in a neighboring apartment – and I was glad they had no access to weapons. And I know of people who live 50 miles from the nearest full-time law enforcement officer, and in an area where the wildlife watches you – and to restrict their possession of firearms is tantamount to tying them naked and outstretched to four widely-spread stakes, rubbing them all over with raw beefsteak and catnip, and leaving them to be preyed on.
There probably is an answer to the gun-possession question. And it’s not going to be found by facile, simplistic extremism in either direction.
If anyone thinks that the gun ban here in DC is the reason that there are so many murders, you ought to come out here and visit sometime to dispell your illusions. WE have rampant poverty, a terrible education system, and decades of incompetent government. These have allowed a criminal underground to thrive. I’m not in favor of the gun ban in DC, but the idea that the ban alone caused a sky-high murder rate is just laughable.
Agreed. But the gun ban sure isn’t cutting down on those murders either.
Meanwhile, a law abiding citizen like myself didn’t even consider living in the District when I moved to the area back in 1998. I might have done so except that I am a gun owner, and didn’t want to be considered a felon just by storing my target and hunting arms at home. DC then lost me as a potential taxpayer and property owner.
I moved instead to the Virginia suburbs. Virginia, to put it mildly, has something of a permissive attitude toward guns. 
How did they not have access to weapons? If they are willing to break the law by using crack, why would it bother them to illegally posses a firearm?
Since we were granted the right to carry, violent crime has dropped in Texas.
Handguns should have been banned in the 19th century but now it’s too late.
It would be foolish to take guns away from law abiding citizens while criminals will still have them.
West Virginia has very permissive gun laws and one of the lowest murder rates in the nation. Last I checked we were the 6th safest state overall, crime-wise.
No one factor can explain it, so I’m not saying that DC is dangerous solely because their law abiding citizens aren’t allowed to have guns. But I would point out that we also have crushing poverty out the wazoo and a hell of a lot less economic opportunity than DC enjoys. Our schools also suck, too, and we have a wealth of corrupt politicians that refuse to die/retire and have been running the state into the ground for 70 years.
Why is it, then, that West Virginia remains a relatively safe place to live while DC is so dangerous? Are West Virginians just “better people” than DC’ers? No. I don’t see any other difference between the two except that in WV, a criminal knows the person whose house they are breaking into in the middle of the night is likely to be armed and just itchin’ to shoot a bad guy. Maybe if DC leveled the playing field, their criminals would be a little less fearless. It’s hard to be afraid of the woman you’re about to rape when you know there’s a 99% chance that she has nothing more than a kitchen knife to defend herself with.
All this talk about poverty and lack of opportunity. You know, some(dare I say most?) people have morals and no matter how hard things may get, they’ll never resort to crime.
So what’s your point? DC just happens to have more immoral people with guns than other areas of the country?
My point is that I don’t think criminals are created by poverty. It certainly is no excuse.
Scum who steal and/or rape and/or kill will do so anyway regardless of socio-economic status. Take Winona Ryder or O.J. for instance.
Take a trip down to the courthouse and you’ll see that you’re wrong.
They must love crime. Or maybe they are aware of the correlation between liberal gun ownership laws and gun deaths.
buns have you read anything we’ve been saying?
Yes, I just don’t agree with it. Is that OK?
I’m afraid I’m going to disagree with you. Yes, there are people who firmly believe that they aren’t bound by laws or morality. However that is not the only source for criminals or criminal behavior. I don’t believe that all criminals are created by poverty, but in poor areas, especially poor areas with historically corrupt government, there comes a point where many people will decide that there is no way to get ahead while playing by the rules. And so start playing outside the rules.
There is no one source for criminal behavior. Which is why I agree with what Polycarp has said in his post.
I will amend my statement and concede that poverty may lead to crime in some cases.
Non causa pro causa. DC has always had the highest homicide rate.
Does the D.C. gun ban cause the crime here in D.C.? No, but it certainly doesn’t help. I’m not sure that those who oppose the gun ban should necessarily frame their argument as “D.C.'s gun ban caused the high crime rate, so therefore if we repeal it crime will go down.” I think the cause and effect is hard to prove, and if it would ever get repealed and then crime does not go down, it would be much easier to reinstate it.
I think the way to frame the argument is that the gun ban has been completely ineffective. Everyone who lives in or around D.C. knows that criminals in D.C. have easy access to guns. It’s not like this law has stopped these people from obtaining firearms. The only people prevented from owning guns here are the law abiding citizens – the ones, by definition, who would not misuse the guns (to be completely accurate – it’s not illegal to own shotguns or single-shot rifles. I own a shotgun here, but it was a pain in the ass to register. Handguns and semi-automatic rifles are banned. Of course, D.C. law prevents them from being stored with ammunition in them, so they are legally ineffective for defensive purposes). Since criminals ignore the law, it makes sense to allow law-abiding citizens the chance to own a gun to defend themselves. Of course, to make it truly effective they would also have to allow concealed carry permits.
Now, let’s assume that this happens. Will the crime rate in D.C. go down? I doubt it. Most of the people in D.C. are liberals who abhor guns in principle. Even if guns were legal, they would not own one. Criminals would still know that they could prey on the rich liberals in Dupont Cirle, Logan Circle, Georgetown, etc., since these folks would never think of owning a gun. In other neighborhoods, the people already have guns and are already using them defensively. If you read about a lot of D.C. murders, you’ll see that many of them were probably defensive use of firearms. Sure, it was probably a drug dealer defending his life from another drug dealer or something of that sort, but it’s still a defensive use of a gun.
What a lot of hooey. For one thing, killing someone in self defense is not “murder”. For another, I can just as easily state that there has never been a defensive use of firearms in DC,* if I am not required to support that claim*. Put up or shut up.
Small city in New York – a state where there are controls on legal firearms. They apparently didn’t have connections to get illegal weapons, and certainly weren’t about to apply for permits to buy them legally.
Yeah, I too have seen this attitude from people. “If the law refuses to help, we need to take the law into our own hands.” Unfortunate but true. There’s no one magic line between “sociopathic criminals” and the rest of us.