The Washington Post reported that Mayor Adrian M. Fenty will appeal the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s 2-1 decision that Washington D.C’s ban on private ownership of handguns is unconstitutional. This appeal by District lawyers, filed as District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller, is likely to pave the way to a Supreme Court hearing and if the Court accepts the case, it will be the first time since 1939 that the Court specifically addresses gun rights, as covered in the ‘bear arms’ clause in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the Constitution states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Mayor Fenty said at a news conference outside D.C. police headquarters, “The only possible outcome of more handguns in the home is more violence.” Is that really a convincing argument? Many of us may be familiar with the bumper sticker slogan from the National Rifle Association, “Guns do not kill people, people kill people,” which is a more persuasive argument than the mayor’s slippery slope logic. Further, Washington D.C. residents should also be concerned about a glut of black market or illegal guns that are not regulated if this handgun ban is upheld. Isn’t it more effective to regulate a commodity rather than ban it? After all, the prohibition of alcohol from 1920–1933 and the “war on drugs” which has been going on for decades are two excellent examples where an outright ban is not always successful in deterring people from obtaining what they want. It’s a natural response for some to want to protect their home and family in an area of increasing gun violence by obtaining a gun.
On the other hand, according to District Attorney General Linda Singer:
This is more than an intellectual or ideological argument. It’s real,” Singer said. “For the residents of the District of Columbia, it’s a matter of life and death.
Put another way, the city’s residents may not want to delve into the possible outcomes or consequences for any decision at this time; they just want the senseless and incessant killing to stop now. So Major Fenty is taking a bold step forward. If the Supreme Court should decide to support the city’s ban on private ownership of handguns, let’s hope that Mayor Fenty will cough up the resources (e.g. more police officers, effective education reform) necessary to prevent illegal firearms and gun violence in the city.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
Okay….
What is your position on this whole thing?
Well?
McConnell,
I’m still on the fence, but leaning towards the side that opposes Fenty’s proposal. In any case, I want to see DC’s crime levels go down…somehow. What’s your position?
Gun rights. Take gun safety classes. Know how to operate one and then get your gun permit to those who want them adn are not mentally unstable or have a felony or serious criminal record.
The thing is MSM rarely report how guns have saved home owners from burglary, assault and so on. Or store owners protected themselves from robbers. Or how attack dogs mauled people and were shot dead by neighbors helping the victim.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/g.....ogger.html
And how do we make DC a safer place? I doubt the founding fathers envisioned the situation we have today. Putting a gun in everyone’s hand is not going to decrease gun violence in DC (Ben’s link below describing the low violence levels in Illinois and Switzerland is interesting, but I don’t think it will work in DC).
Why you think it won’t work? What are you saying? That citizens do not have the right to protect themselves with the use of their guns? If there is an aggressive educational program on the use of guns, along with grants and what not, it could actually turn things around and give robbers second thought about invading a home or store.
I’m not here to deny citizens their right to defend themselves from crimes against them. However, people have no problems on denying them their right to self preservation.
Wow, a first and confrontional comment. *shrug* Up to you.
As for my position, I favor a ban, if at all possible, but willing to compromise for smarter ownership registry. I am a realist enough to realize that this country had been too long under the delusion that a gun bring safety as attested to by Hollywoods and escapist novels. I personally reject that thesis because NRA said it right but perversely in a wrong direction. If we are to concentrate on developing peace-making skills from day one, the issue of ownership of guns would be a moot one.
Just my two cents based on long time reading of various sources with strong authority on this issue. Yeah, they are progressive leaning but they tend to be more realistic more than other political leanings.
Not so Oscar. It’s a matter on the right for one to defend oneself or their families. Nothing more. Nothing less. I’m not here to deny people their right on self-preservation or protection from crimes against them.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/g.....ogger.html
1) Ha, militias. They’d be portrayed as a bunch of wackos if they tried to actually oppose the “state” here thru armed means. Another example how the constitution is outdated.
2) I don’t think banning handguns had much of an effect on crime. Social factors play bigger roles. If anything, making guns legal likely would bring homicidal rate down because criminals would no longer have monopoly on weapons, making it riskier for them to try something funny.
There’s a coupla towns in America that made owning a firearm mandatory and the crime fell sharply since. Here’s an article on one of them:
http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html
The other town is Morton Grove, Ill.
I found something else interesting: “Switzerland, through its militia system, distributes both pistols and fully automatic assault rifles to all adult males and requires them to store their weapons at home. Further, civilian long-gun purchases are essentially unregulated, and handguns are available to any adult without a criminal record or mental defect. Nevertheless, Switzerland suffers far less crime per capita than the United States and almost no gun crime.” (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html)
One caveat is those places are likely already low in crime. No telling what effect such laws would have on, say, a big city.
I wonder how long it will be before we see the next constitutional amendment. The last one was in 1992:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....nstitution
I have mixed feelings about Mayor Adrian Fenty’s reactive leadership to latest gun violence against poor youngsters.
The remaining questions - Why the firearms end up in youngsters’ hand by the first place? Where were their parents or guardians?
I could sympathize with Mayor Fenty’s anger about the loss of DC youngster’s lives to senseless violence.
I used to be a longtime DC resident myself. I currently live in Arlington County (VA). I could see much difference how the police officers react to any incidents. People in Arlington County really fear the police officers more than in DC.
Low crime rate in Arlington County (I speak of the large land tract as compared to DC). Too many people f..k up in DC with hopeless liberal attitude.
Very interesting comparasion of gun ownership in Switzerland which is well-known for its reptuation as a netural country, Ben M.
RLM
See studies like John Lott comparing concealed guns with lower crimes rates. http://www.nra.org etc. Deaf people can carry arms and shoot and kill too. BTW, Shane, if you have a family member killed, will you go Dukakis or?
Sure, deaf people can carry arms and kill too. Your point is?
In the discussions I have seen about gun rights, a lot of gun rights supporters conveniently omit the first few words of the Second Amendment — a “well regulated” militia. That argues for some form of regulation, which, to me, translates as a limitation on gun rights.
I have yet to see anyone argue with a straight face that handguns are necessary for a militia. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there were people, especially, the lawyers in that case, who would pursue that argument.
The Supreme Court, until recently, has assiduously avoided any case involving the Second Amendment. With the current make up of the Court, it’s a toss-up as to what the ultimate decision will be.
Frumious: the “well regulated” part refers to “well run” or “operating correctly”, as in “it is a well-regulated clock”. This is an artifact of the common English in use at the time.
As for handguns in a militia, I do believe that there isn’t a military or militia anywhere on the planet that uses rifles only. I’m afraid I missed your point.
I disagree somewhat with your interpretation of “well run” or “operating correctly”. Look at the phrase in its entirety, “well regulated militia,” which implies a well organized and cohesive entity of some sort, not on an individual basis. Not everyone can be part of the militia and it is controlled, i.e., regulated, by a set of governing principles.
As for my comment about the handguns, if you are assuming a militia is a military unit, then that leaves out civilians at large, eh? You need to define a “militia” and I don’t think that it includes everyone as certain gun rights proponents aver.
I don’t think the language in the Second Amendment allows for that and the founding fathers didn’t intend that everyone should have guns. If you want to go strictly textual and look at the history behind the amendment, they probably intended only white men to have guns and even then they understood that there were limits, such as not handing out guns to individuals with mental illnesses or with a propensity to commit murder.
If you argue that there are no limits to a person’s rights to have guns, then you are essentially arguing that murderers, mentally ill individuals, and children, can have guns. I don’t think that approach would be popular with a lot of people. Thus, the need for a form of regulation.
I have yet to see any military unit use solely handguns, with the possible exception of military police. Thus, I wouldn’t say that handguns are a necessary or vital part of the militia (or military).
FB,
How do you come to this conclusion?
Also, that’s an interesting argument against handguns. If handguns are banned, criminals can simply turn to shotguns, rifles, and machine guns. How would that improve the present situation?
Considering that blacks were counted as 3/4ths of a white man and white women had to wait more than a century afterwards to get the vote, I’d say that was good evidence that the Constitution was written for white men, especially white men of property.
As for the regulations, it appears that states are responsible for the regulation aspect. See this section on the Second Amendment. The Wikipedia entry is interesting and some of it seems to contradict my views although I’m not well versed on this subject to see if it is biased or not (always something to consider when viewing a Wikipedia entry). But, if I’m reading this correctly, it seems to be saying that there is a difference between the right to bear arms under service of an entity (state, government, or the people), and self-defense, and the Second Amendment is not clear on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....nstitution
Which is why we have amendments.
Your point?
Sorry. I was referring to your 1st paragraph. And how amendments are added over time because as time changes so do the thinkings.
I’m just tired of criminals having guns while law-abiding citizens don’t have access to those guns to protect themselves. How many times have we read about home invasions and rapes in the Washington Post? Too many times for me to count. I certainly would feel safer if I had a gun in my place to protect myself.
Noelle,
If there are more guns around, will that create more opportunities for gun-related violence?
I seriously doubt it. I’m from Texas. It’s a Right -to-Carry state. Right-to-carry states have lower violent crime rates on average: 22% lower total violent crime, 30% lower murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault.
Same thing for New Mexico. The right carry gun. I have come across citizens (not police) who carry their gun in their holster in plain site at the store, restaurant and even at a bank.
Noelle,
I understand your argument, and it is a valid one. If DC bans handguns, they may only know about those that are registered with the city.
While guns are usually the main part that contributes to violence, the problem is rooted in the person’s psyche.
We must protect the constitution and freedom. If we change this amendment, then people will argue for multiple changes to the constitution.
(I am a democrat, by the way.)
Cookies,
That’s a slippery slope argument. Everyone is *already* arguing for multiple changes to the Constitution (for example, President Bush wants to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage). Making changes to the Constitution is not necessarily a bad thing (especially a large number of U.S. representatives vote in favor of it).
From your comment here, Shane, it seems like you’re touting “popularity” as a good reason to make a change to the Constitution.
Making changes to the Constitution should not be a popularity contest issue. It should be about the appropriateness of rights and whether people’s rights would be infringed by making x, y, or z amendment.
I’d rather have representatives who think about constitutionality and not split hairs about whether they should stay in seat because of a misdemeanor rather than a felony. I want representatives who think about constituents, not about their own jobs, lives, and egos.
You can bet if this amendment goes forward, there’ll be a SCOTUS decision right quick because someone definitely will make a case.
Not Popular,
This seems like a contradiction.
Unfortunately it appears that the two, what is right and what is popular, are tied together in this political climate.
For example, Bush was pushing the same-sex marriage ban as a Constitutional amendment. Whose “right” being infringed upon here? You would think that permitting same-sex marriage should be the amendment we push forward, not Bush’s proposal. His doesn’t seem to protect people’s rights. The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1972 and is still being “considered” by Congress, would protect the rights of different genders.
It’s not a contradiction. Representatives who think about constituents’ rights (including their own), should be focusing on what is right and valid and constitutional, not spending time trying to keep their own seat after a misdemeanor charge was made public.
As for your comment about Bush, I wholeheartedly agree. I’ve never thought of him to be a champion of the Constitution, and now with this gun rights issue at play… it’s going to get even more murky. Citizens do have the right to protect themselves, but there is also a need for gun control. Back in the days of the 1770s militias, all that was really available were rifles and non-automatic pistols. And with gun control comes the need for gun safety education — how to operate pistols and semi-automatics safely.
There is a reason the founders of the Constitution allowed for amendments — I think they foresaw the possibility that society would change. But to me, the introduction to the Constitution still holds for all of us today:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
One can take a good look at what’s happening in England. They have a strict ban on guns and their crime rate is climbing like there’s no tomorrow.
Because criminals KNOW that the victims they go after will highly unlikely carry guns. Even knives for that matter and that they have the monopoly on instilling fear into the hearts of many people who are now mostly defenseless. Police cannot do the job and protect people everywhere. Simply impossible. Individuals are left to fend for themselves. It is really a travesty that people are denied the right to defend themselves by whatever means, including the use of their personal guns.
Whoa, according to this article, the use of handguns in crime increased by 40% in four years after the UK’s handgun ban:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
Yep. Banning of guns actually caused an increase on the number of guns used and smuggled into. Gun bans actually helped cause an increase on violent crime because now there is a black market for guns that exist.
Stats for firearm homicides in 2005/2006 prepared by the UK gov’t:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/r.....sb0207.pdf
For what it’s worth, the DC’s government’s petition for cert on this case can be found here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/mova.....tition.pdf
Thanks Christian. The DC government has some compelling arguments. It’s ironic that DC argues that it is not a state in its defense. Many residents want DC to become a state.
“After all, the prohibition of alcohol from 1920–1933 and the “war on drugs” which has been going on for decades are two excellent examples where an outright ban is not always successful in deterring people from obtaining what they want.”
THAT was the line that jumped out at me. For the record, I am pro-gun control, but anti-ban, with the exception of fully automatic weapons (handguns are actually semi-autos, so that is why I did not include that in my hypoethical ban).
Back to my point, it’s that line that jumped out on me. How does our endeavors to ban something can, in fact, exceberate the problem at hand? It’s interesting how the “War on –” is batted around those days, and draconian measures are taken without much forethought.
Discuss?
I apologize if I’m derailing this thread. Do let me know, and we can hold this for another forum. :) But I do think it is all relevant. How does American society, as a whole, approach to solving our social problems? Have our methods been effective? Why or why not? We can discuss this in regards to the gun bans, of course. :)
I think it’s relatively easy to be both in favor of a handgun ban and in favor of right to bear arms. Handguns are easy to conceal and that’s what makes them such a great choice for criminals. Shotguns are harder to conceal. So suppose you banned handguns but not shotguns. Then you defend your home with a shotgun. In close quarters (read: indoors) you’ll actually hit MORE with a shotgun than you will with a handgun. Of course that does nothing to address the fact that you don’t want lead from shotguns flying around your home and possibly hitting one of your loved ones, but the same can be said about bullets from handguns. And while there might be situations in which the greater accuracy of a handgun is desirable because of the closeness of the target you WANT to hit to what you DON’T WANT to hit (such as when a criminal has taken one of your loved ones hostage and is using him or her as a shield), think on it: How accurate is your aim, especially when you’re scared? Are you SURE that you can hit the bad guy and not your wife or husband or kid? A human shield might neutralize the advantage of a shotgun, but not by much if you don’t know how to shoot in the first place.
I say go with a shotgun (if you’re going to purchase a firearm at all) and pray you never have to use it.
Personally, I would sincerely hope that I never do have to use a shotgun…I fired my Dad’s shotgun once, and the damn thing kicked like a mule - my shoulder was sore for a week.
That’s something to consider about shotguns - not everyone can fire one effectively, and they can and do kick. For many people, and especially women, a handgun is actually the better choice for a self-defense weapon. They are easier to handle, easier to store (you can keep one in locked up in a nighstand drawer), and easier to fire.
Yeah but those are some of the exact same reasons that they’re so much easier to accidently shoot someone with, too. Generally I’d say that the more trouble something is to load and carry and shoot, the more care you’re going to take in making sure that what you’re aiming at is what you actually want to hit.
Besides handguns can kick too depending on the type…
(I do agree with you completely though that I’d hope I’d never have to use one.)
Please realize that its the criminals that have perpetuated gun crimes and violence, not responsible law-abiding gun owners.
If a ban was put in place, do you seriously think the criminals are going to heed the ban? Instead, the ban will simply restrict law-abiding citizens from owning a gun. This approach doesn’t make sense to me and will probably not garner the desired results in an area like D.C. when there are criminal organizations that supply arms to the street criminal.
To truly take the reins, you need to break the black market or have the National Guard patrol the streets.
We do have to juggle the odds.
I do not think that an fully automatic gun in the hands of anybody will help matters. Someone who is untrained or unprepared can cause even more damage that way.
Even if that person is trained and prepared, a criminal may have the opportunity to take the gun away before they have the chance to defend themselves. I would rather a criminal sneak in, steal the semi-auto handgun, than happen on a stash of fully loaded autos. I’d rather have less guns around, than more. I know we cannot ban guns fully, and I am fine with that, but we really should be trying to limit the types of guns out there, even if it is only very limited and not fully effective.
Besides, what are fully automatic weapons for, other than killing people? Hunters shun them. The average homeowner can handle a handgun much better. The criminals is the uncontrolled element, but we must what we can do. That is the AFA’s job, to crack down on the black market, however best they can.
they’re fun to shoot
Are you on mushrooms Peyote Pete? A state-wide or even city-wide gun control is not going to work. You would need to have a national gun control program. Imagine if manufacturers had to distribute automatic weapons through secure, government regulated channels only– for military or police use only.
This means VA needs to stop being so lax about who can own guns and toughen up gun control. There also needs to be programs that intervene whenever someone is displaying violent tendencies.
I’m similar to Katie above. I support gun control, but not a ban. As long it’s trained law-abiding adult citizens, I have no objections to them having semi automatic weapons. It sure as heck is a deterrent to criminals.. So.. Go for it.
Are you from Kansas or something? Semi automatic weapons– all it takes is 1 person out of 700,000+ population to shoot up many innocent victims within minutes. Have any of us learned our lesson from UVA?
Yeah, I’m from Smallville, Kansas and I’m best friends with Clark Kent. And do you mean Virginia Tech?
Okay. Back to reality… :P That guy who shot up VT was severely mentally ill, and quite frankly, should’ve been locked up in a psychiatric hospital a long time ago. The best way to deal with that is to address the issues within the mental health system, not banning guns.
Yeah. It’s not like a nut isn’t going to get his hands on some other weapon if he can’t get a gun. I wouldn’t want handguns banned because I think doing so will stop criminals. I would want handguns banned because anyplace an otherwise law abiding citizen would carry one isn’t a place I’m ready for a gun to be. If I’m walking through a dangerous neighborhood, my guard would be up (not that it would matter much, but it might). But if I’m in Giant or something buying milk when it happens to be held up, I’m just as likely to be shot by the 70 year old guy who carries a gun so he won’t get mugged as I am by the robber. And because he probably doesn’t have as much practice using a gun as the robber does, after he shoots me why shouldn’t that robber finish him off?
Ban handguns and you’ll cut down the fatalities that occur amongst law-abiding citizens who accidently shoot their spouses who were getting a glass of water at 2am, or who have a bad Christmas or something and decide a gun is an easy way out. And while you’re at it ban automatic weapons, because you don’t need 2000 bullets a minute to kill a deer. But don’t ban anything else, because home protection–and ONLY home protection (leave the protection of other places up to trained people)–should remain a right.
(PS that’s not to say that you shouldn’t train in the proper handling of firearms–especially when it comes to protecting your home. I’m not from Kansas but I AM from Wisconsin and I took my first hunter’s safety course when I was twelve. And so did many of my classmates. Best shot in the course was a girl who sat four desks down from me in History.)
DP, if more students had guns at VT, he might’ve been shot down and killed fewer people. Something to think about.
Yeah, that’s possible. It’s also possible that by allowing college students own guns, the suicide rate by freshmen would be higher, and the professor death rates would be higher as well. :P
My point is, we need to improve the mental health system, so it would have never happened in the first place.
Don’t get me wrong.. I’m in favor of allowing people to own guns. But we also should examine why people are driven to commit crimes, as well, then do something about it.
oh yeah no argument from me :)
Why would anyone need a gun in DC except maybe to hunt a few elephants? You’re talking about a city that was the murder capital of the United States. You’re talking about a city that used to have a basketball team called Bullets. You’re talking about a city that just last summer had a crime wave. Gun control doesn’t work if neighboring states like MD or VA don’t enforce them the same way. I can understand if someone wants to buy a rifle used for hunting, but a handgun that is meant to kill another human being is definitely uncalled for.
Paraplegics have the right to bear arms too. I’m surprised there hasn’t been an ADA lawsuit against gun manufacturers for not making guns more accessible for people without arms or fingers to pull the trigger.
A reason to be against gun control.. what if a bear attacks you and attempts to steal your air conditioner?
http://wonkette.com/politics/t.....296818.php
Ordinary citizens have the right to defend themselves against criminals. Nobody should be in the position to tell other people that they do not have the right to defend themselves even if it means using a gun. If an intruder breaks into my house and threatens my family then the last thing that person will see is a gun barrel pointing at him. Family comes first, criminals last.
McConnell,
It could be argued that by defending the rights of would-be criminals to bear arms, you’re putting them first and families last.
What do you mean by “would-be” criminals? It’s not against the law to defend yourself, even if it means killing somebody else (as long as you can prove it was done in just defense.)
Jt,
Would it be irresponsible for me to not tote a gun with me everyday to protect my family? If someone points a gun at me and asks for my cash, I would gladly give them my greenbacks rather than recreate the OK Corral.
It’s not about being responsible or irresponsible; this is about the right to defend yourself however you want.
Jt,
I understand your point. Aside from protecting rights, I’m still bothered with the idea of ordinary U.S. citizens toting handguns.
How is it different from knives? Knives can be just as lethal - and even more painful - compared to guns. Weapons can be made out of anything, so why the ban on handguns?
Jt,
I don’t think the ban is the best direction to take, but I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of U.S. citizens going about their everyday lives while carrying handguns.
Is it because you still have this “wild west” mentality? Is it because Hollywood has polluted your mind abou the OK Corral?
In New Mexico in a town where I live guns are permitted to be worn visibly on the outside in a holster. I have met and talked to people who carried their guns. Of course, they have a permit and training that allow them to carry it. I have seen them at gas stations, restaurants and even at a bank.
Now, would a robber or mugger come up to that person seeing he is wearing a gun?
I think it is just the fact that you’re not used to that kind of reality to be comfortable with. It helps leverage the playing field against criminals who use guns illegally and use them for a purpose…to commit crimes with.
McConnell,
You are right, the only times I saw a gun carried by ordinary U.S. citizens was at target practice during camp and the boy scouts or hunting.
If anyone has the “wild west” mentality perhaps it’s you? I’m not the one here who totes a gun.
Shane, criminals ALREADY have guns, regardless if they’re legal or not.
Otherwise you should be baffled as to why DC was the national murder capital during the 1980s and 1990s.
I have to agree with McConnell here. Yeah, the hell has frozen. ;)
I don’t love guns- wouldn’t carry one myself. But law-abiding folks should have the right to. If criminals know that their targets *might* carry, it changes the whole game.
Ben M.,
Ok, so we have Joe Smith here, and he has a gun and permit. He’s a U.S. citizen, but is he a criminal? Who knows. Maybe not today, maybe tomorrow…or maybe never. The chances are nil of him ever becoming a criminal, so it’s alright to arm him with a Glock semi-automatic.
We’ve all met people with bad judgment (and they’re probably certified mentally sane by the state). Do we want a gun in their hands? Probably not, but hey, it’s their right and if they think we’re harming them for any reason…
That’s what bothers me.
I agree with Shane on this. And I agree with him on handing over your money if you get mugged. Tops, you lose what? The $300 per night withdrawal limit if he gets your ATM card and code? I like my money too, but I consider $300 bucks a good price to pay for never having to wake up at night and face the memory of having killed someone, even a mugger. The only time I’d use lethal force is if there were an immediate threat of physical harm to myself or my family.
What I don’t get is that a lot people are all too willing to spring for a handgun but if you ask them if they’ve purchased/install yardlights with motion trackers, many will say “no.” If you want to defend your home, do you want to do it with the criminal outside or inside? As far as defense is concerned I’d want to keep the guy as far away from my home as possible, and there are a lot of ways to do that without ever picking up a gun.
My point is that if there’s a *possibility* that you’re armed, the robbery probably would NEVER have happened in the first place.
And what if you were a woman? Rape isn’t something you’d forget easily after parting some greenbacks.
People who go psycho can attack with knifes and rather heavy objects anyway.
It isn’t being “too willing” to spring for a gun. Like I said, I wouldn’t own one even if it was legal.
I’m talking about the *right* to even the playing ground with the gun toters. It’s about giving predators something to think about.
Ben M.
I understand what you are saying. I think we actually agree with each other. Basically, U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, but that does not make some of us (like you and me) feel safer.
Oops- something went awry when I added a paragraph to my comment- look below. :)
Yeah, we both don’t like the idea of people carrying guns. Unpleasant facts of life I guess.
I understand what you’re saying too, Ben. Hey, question for anyone:
Does anyone know what DC law says about carrying pepper spray products? If not the exact brand police officers carry, some other less potent (though not much less) type?
My point is that if there’s a *possibility* that you’re armed, the robbery probably would NEVER have happened in the first place.
And what if you were a woman? Rape isn’t something you’d forget easily after parting some greenbacks.
People who go psycho can attack with knifes and rather heavy objects anyway.
It isn’t being “too willing” to spring for a gun. Like I said, I wouldn’t own one even if it was legal.
I’m talking about the *right* to even the playing ground with the gun toters. It’s about giving predators something to think about.
People with bad judgment? Well according to case studies of the 2 towns in America I mentioned and Switzerland, where males are armed with automatics- they just aren’t as big a factor you’d think.