In Washington, the best defense is self-defense

[spin]

More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

Reading most press accounts, one would be forgiven for thinking Armageddon had arrived after the Supreme Court struck down the District's handgun ban in 2008. Predictions sprung forth from all directions that allowing more citizens to own guns and not forcing them to keep them locked up was going to threaten public safety. According to D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, more guns in homes would cause more violent crime.

This has never been the case. Local politicians enthusiastically embraced the 1977 handgun ban predicting it would make Washington a safe place by dramatically reducing murder rates. But they were as wrong three decades ago as they are now.

A telling story is illustrated by the murder numbers since the handgun ban and gun-lock bans were struck down. Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI's preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington's population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008.

Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985. emphasis added
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/guns-decrease-murder-rates/

It's a little hard to believe that merely allowing citizens to own handguns caused this decrease in crime. You may now be allowed to own a handgun in Washington D.C., but the process to get one is so daunting that it acts as an effective deterrent to gun ownership.

Still, the murder rate didn't increase because citizens can now own handguns. It decreased.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. Call me a Cassandra, but...

...what if the Tea Party, which--correct me if I'm wrong--predominantly own firearms decides to have a "Million Man March on Washington"?

Now the police have no legal means to disarm them.

A million irate Tea Parties within walking distance of the White House?

Is this good?

[eqfan592]

2. There was talk by a small group of setting up some sort of "million gun march."

The idea was pretty much squished by most people in the firearms community (at least the ones I spend time in) as being a bad idea and sending the wrong message. So even among Tea Party members, I doubt you would get a significant amount of support for such a march (at least not an armed one).

I know it may be difficult for some to contemplate that progressives are not the only ones capable of generally peaceful protest, but that truly is the reality.

[Euromutt]

3. You're talking about non-DC residents, right?

To get a handgun permit in DC, you have to live or have a place of business in DC. DC also does not acknowledge any state's CCW permit. So if you don't live or work in DC, there's no way you can legally bring a handgun into the District.

There's also little reason to assume a majority--let alone an overwhelming one--of gun owners are committed Republicans.

I'm not going to call you a Cassandra; the thing with Cassandra was that she was right.

[PavePusher]

4. As long as they did nothing illegal...

(and the bearing of arms is legal, despite the D.C. government and its suck-toads' protestations and obstacles) why should they need to be disarmed?

Why do you live in such fear and paranoia?

[rd_kent]

5. Well, the last tea-party gathering onky had about 10-20K people, so I dont think you need to worry

about 1 million of them.

Besides, it IS a Constitutional right, just like free speech, so......

[Euromutt]

7. Plus, the White House is pretty bullet-resistant, isn't it?

In other words, some Teabagger letting fly at the White House is unlikely to result in any harm to the occupants, while it would do untold damage to the Teabaggers' cause.

[rd_kent]

8. Yup

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. How silly of me...

...of course the DC police can handle them if there's only 15,000.

[rd_kent]

10. Yes, how silly....

I was not being flippant or sarcastic to you. I think you missed my point and maybe I was not clear enough.



While I understand your original point, I really do not feel there is any significant danger of that or any other scenario of a large armed mob marching on the White House with the intent to fire weapons......

[jeepnstein]

19. The D.C. police would be the least of their concerns.

An armed mob of 15,000 storming the White House would trigger a more vigorous response than writing citations and making arrests. Can you say "National Security Zone"?

[SteveM]

6. My goodness, we pro-2A folks are constantly accused of being "paranoid"....

I note you say "Million Man March on Washington." Is it your assumption, whatever you think about this Tea Party, that they are only men? Some 30+ per cent of gun-owners are women. Perhaps you were just using the "Million Man March" of a few years back purely for purposes of scale; I hope so.

If any person marches with a gun (and local law is violated by doing so), then LEO has legal means to disarm them. If you think a group can muster a million gun-owners (CARRYING guns, I presume), they would not have to go near the White House -- the Democratic Party could be easily turned out in the next election; or at a minimum, the Democrats may actually consider junking their gun-control policies. In which case, we should all thank WHOEVER is in the streets.

On a side note, I despair that the GOP not only has framed Obama successfully and repeatedly in their usual unopposed fashion (bullies need the bullied, after all), but I despair that they are capturing the "populist" sentiment which once characterized a good portion of the Democratic Party. (You will note that the DNC, from the Obama Administration to many who post in DU, can't stand ANYTHING, populist or otherwise, which actually challenges the pro-corporate, non-ideological, philosphy-less Democratic Party of the last 30+ years.) But I am further dismayed that they can run a tea-bagger demonstration with numbers weaker than a slow Monday night during the anti-war days of the late 60s, and get vast coverage and sympathy; the GOP has not only "stolen" our populism, they have stolen our style.

[spin]

11. I haven't heard a lot of chatter about the Second Amendment March recently...

and if these irate gun owners were to march, the current firearms law in Washington D.C. would probably prohibit firearms carry.

In my opinion, holding such a march would be a lot like shooting yourself in the foot. There is a good chance that the Supreme Court will overturn Chicago's handgun ban and result to legal challenges to other restrictive gun control laws across the nation. The tide is swinging in favor of firearm ownership.

The mainstream media would relish portraying a gun march in an extremely negative light. I can easily imagine interviews with some of the more extreme members of the march that would terrify viewers and lead to a demand for stricter gun control laws.

[TheWraith]

12. First, you're assuming there's a million of those freakshows running around the country.

Second, in most places you require a permit to carry a weapon in public. No permit, no carry.

[Big Al Mac]

15. Do you have citations to prove that?

"Second, in most places you require a permit to carry a weapon in public. No permit, no carry. "

I think you will find that is NOT the case.
In Ohio we have NO gun registration, open carry is legal state wide, NO waiting periods, NO One gun a month law, and Ohio is a shall issue state for a Concealed Handgun License.

[TheWraith]

18. Since the White House isn't in Ohio, that's kind of irrelevant.

In DC, you have to live or work in the district in order to have a carry permit. They do not recognize the permits of any state, and open carry is not legal.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. It is still illegal to carry a gun in DC.

Besides, although the Tea Baggers are on the opposite side of us on almost all issues, they are, in general law-abiding folks. Even if they held an armed rally in an open-carry state, I seriously doubt that anything would happen, except that they would give themselves a public relations black eye.

[PavePusher]

16. Unconstitutionally 'illegal'...

But that is going to change.

What would be wrong with a non-violent civil-disobedience protest march by armed Citizens?

It's been done many times before in other places....

[oneshooter]

20. Actually there is a process where you can get a CCL in D.C.

It is long and involved, and is a "may issue" by the DC Chief of Police.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf

However, there has NEVER been one issued!!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[paulsby]

14. yes, it is good

an armed citizenry. that's how it was supposed to be, and in many places, IS in our democracy.

*i* am the police. why should i be able to "disarm" somebody for exercising their constitutional rights?

should i be able to sew somebody's lips together because they speak out?

[Tim01]

17. Oy. Just never mind. nt