Posts Tagged ‘DC’
“Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?” [Chicago Mayor Richard] Daley asked while speaking at a Navy Pier event. “If [the justices] think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken. Then why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle it in the streets?”
Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate…
In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982.
Meanwhile, the other four most populous cities saw a total drop at the same time of only 6 percent.
Similarly, in the year after the 2008 “Heller” decision, the murder rate fell two-and-a-half times faster in Washington than in the rest of the country.
Shockingly, this doesn’t seem to have registered on the national media’s radar.
And so was the gun used in the Las Vegas courthouse shooting.
They were sold or traded to dealers by the Memphis PD in accordance with department policy. Personally, I don’t really see a big problem with this. The criminal is the criminal, not the gun.
The story includes this about the gun used at the Pentagon:
At the Pentagon, gunman John Patrick Bedell carried two 9 mm handguns, one of them a Ruger.
Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.
Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell’s purchase.
Is that right? Does Nevada not required checks for private handgun sales? In Michigan you are required by law to have either a Concealed Pistol License or a License To Purchase A Pistol which is valid for only 10 days, even for private transactions.
Oddly, no AP Exclusives when one of the cars that used to be in the impound lot is driven by a drunk driver and takes out a family. Cars, unlike guns, aren’t magical totems.
Wacko. From California. With guns.
Now, I’ve been to innumerable “Truther” rallies over the last 8 years, and can say with some confidence that about 98% of folks who think 9/11 was a hoax are left-wingers, or at the very least fit in very comfortably in the left-wing milieu, since the impetus behind Truthism is to undermine the basis for Bush’s “War on Terror,” an impetus which is also a cornerstone of modern Leftist thought as well.
So far, however, I’ve noticed a deafening quietude on the left-leaning blogs about this guy’s affiliations and belief systems. Those brave enough to troll leftist comments sections have noted mumblings therein that the guy was probably a secret “teabagger,” despite all evidence to the contrary.
Multiple sources told ESPN.com that an argument commenced during a card game on the team’s overnight flight back to Washington from Phoenix on Dec. 19 and escalated into a heated exchange between Arenas and Crittenton. The Wizards had Dec. 20 off, but sources say hostilities between the two Wizards guards resumed Dec. 21 in the locker room on a practice day.
Sources say that Arenas, in response to what was said on the flight, placed the three guns on a chair near Crittenton’s locker stall and invited him to pick one before practice on Dec. 21. Sources said that Crittenton subsequently let Arenas know that he had his own gun.
Though that’s a lot different than earlier reports that “they drew guns on each other,” it still shows an incredible amount of poor judgment.
I haven’t seen whether these were DC-legal guns. Plus NBA rules forbid guns in locker rooms.
Be a Good Victim by David Rittgers
Marin County, California:
In August, a man shot two people to death on a bridge near San Francisco. At the moment of the killings, two on-duty Marin County sheriff’s deputies were within 100 yards of the shooter. One was close enough to see the muzzle blast of the shotgun. The police officers, however, did not move against the culprit. One, stuck in traffic, called in a description of the killer’s vehicle as he fled. The other positioned her car to prevent traffic from entering the crime scene.
These two law-enforcement officers did what police officers tell the public to do: Don’t intervene. Get a description of the offender. Call the police. Be a good witness.
Much debate ensued about whether the officers’ behavior was appropriate, but the real tragedy is that the victims of this rampage did not have the legal opportunity to arm themselves. To them, the message was clear: Be a good victim.
“May Issue” can be better than “No Issue”, but it’s a compromise that can work against the God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms. Sheriff Robert Doyle in Marin County requires applicants to demonstrate “extreme need” before he’ll okay a permit. That’s like forcing drivers to demonstrate that they’re going to be in a traffic accident before the government allows them to put on their seat belts.
Rittgers writes about the District of Columbia and concealed carry, adding:
Tom Palmer (disclosure: Tom is my colleague at the Cato Institute), once used a handgun to deter a mob of violent aggressors who were yelling death threats at him. Tom’s right, and the right of any other citizen, to arm himself should not be subject to approval by a civil servant who will not be present to protect them.
Criticism leveled at he Marin sheriffs for the August incident may not be warranted. Though close, they may not really have been able to do anything.
Which is exactly the point.
Last week’s recruiting center killer is a Muslim convert who said this week that he feels his actions were justified because of the war:
“We’re not going to turn the other cheek. It’s definitely not the end of it.”
He clearly seems to believe that he’s fighting on the other side in a war. He killed a US serviceman. He’s unrepentant and says it will keep happening.
And no one cares.
Meanwhile, only hours after the event:
We’re informed that this dirtbag is a “white supremacist” and a “known racist.” We’re told about his history of trouble. We’re told about the things he’s said and the things he’s said he’d like to do.
Headlines, headlines, headlines.
If Murdoc were even the weensiest bit cynical, he’d think we’re seeing a double standard here. Particularly since so many have already criticized the media for downplaying the recruiting center story while hyping the killing of an abortionist by a pro-lifer.
Meanwhile, how did this former felon and “known racist” get his hands on a .22 rifle? That’s illegal.
Quick. Pass more laws to restrict firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens because the lawbreakers are ignoring the rules too much.
The driver was questioned before being arrested for possession of unregistered ammunition (shotgun shells) and having an unregistered vehicle, said Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service. The car was found to be safe about two hours later, he said
Did I miss something?
This past June, the Supreme Court decided a question at the heart of one of America’s most impassioned debates, ruling that individual citizens have the constitutional right to possess guns. With that decision, the District’s handgun ban–one of the toughest and most controversial in the nation–was ended.
In Gun Control on Trial, journalist Brian Doherty tells the full story behind the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller ruling. With exclusive, behind the scenes access throughout the case, Doherty delved into the issues of this monumental case to provide a compelling look at the inside stories, including: The plaintiffs’ fight for the right to protect themselves and their families from violent neighborhoods. The activist lawyers who worked exhaustively to affirm that right. The forces that fought to stop the case, including city officials and the NRA. The story of the Heller case stretches back to long before the decision struck down D.C.’s restrictive gun ban and forward to the future of the political and legal battle over gun control in America. Doherty provides clear, concise explanations of the issues and battles that have driven the gun control debate for decades, detailing how the Heller decision is a new starting point for the gun control debate as it passionately and energetically continues in the years ahead.
It’s important to note that the Heller decision does not settle every controversy in the gun control debate. It only settles the legal question of whether or not the right to possess weapons under the Second Amendment extends to personal self-defense: it does, writes Doherty. What the Supreme Court decided in Heller may be narrow in its direct and immediate effect; but it’s deep in its implications for the relationship between the government and the American people, explains Doherty. It establishes a new shape to the arena in which the legal and political struggle over guns and gun control will be fought. And that fight assuredly continues.