The D.C. Gun Ban Doesn’t Work

[jetdawgg]

by Jacob G. Hornberger

In yesterday’s Washington Post, there was an article about gun traffickers who are robbing gun stores in Virginia in order to sell the guns to people in Washington, D.C. The story is timely given that the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today in a case involving the constitutionality of D.C.’s gun ban.

According to the article,

“Firearms traffickers such as Lewis profit in an underground economy that has bustled for decades in the District, regardless of the city's long-debated prohibition on handgun ownership, one of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation.”

It is not a coincidence that a black market in D.C. handguns has been going on for decades and that the handgun ban in D.C. has been in effect for 32 years. The handgun ban itself gives rise to a black market in handguns, just as making drugs illegal has given rise to a black market in drugs.

At least one government official seems to be aware of this economic phenomenon. As Edgar A. Domenech, head of the Washington field office of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, aptly put it, “You’re talking about supply and demand.”

There are two lessons to be learned from this.

First, making guns illegal gives rise to collateral crime — theft of guns. Why is this? Because the illegality makes the price of guns in D.C. artificially high, making it extremely profitable to steal them in Virginia and sell them in D.C. (The drug war has produced a similar cascade of collateral crime, such as muggings, thefts, and robberies in order to get the money to pay the exorbitant black-market prices of illegal drugs.)

Second, real criminals don’t give a hoot about gun-control laws. In other words, a robber or a rapist in D.C. isn’t going to say to himself, “I can’t use a gun to commit this crime because that would be illegal.”

Therefore, the people who are disarmed by a gun ban are not the violent criminals but rather the peaceful and law-abiding people who now are unable to defend themselves and their families from the violent criminals who don’t care that they are violating a gun ban by using a prohibited handgun in the commission of the crime.

Is it any surprise that Washington, D.C., has been called the murder capital of the United States? After enacting their gun ban 32 years ago, D.C. officials should have initiated a nationwide advertising campaign proclaiming: “Attention robbers, murderers, muggers, burglars, rapists, and thieves! Come to the most glorious model city in the country — Washington, D.C. — a gun-free zone, one where people are prevented from defending himself from you.”
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-03-18.asp

[cpl liz]

Just in case any of you think that D.C. feels that since it won't let people defend themselves they feel obligated to defend their citizens in 1977 the case Warren v. District of Columbia the D.C. Superior Court ruled "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen". This was in response to a suit by 3 woman who were totured for 14 hours in 1975 during a home invasion when the police failed to respond to their initial calls for help. Note that the gun ban went into effect in 1976 with the anti-rights folks saying we don't need to defend ourselves, just call the cops.

[HABU]

the court will side with the right to bear arms.... it'll finally be settled... i'm not for gun control.

[jetdawgg]

[HABU]

exactly!... and with wide open borders, guns will flood us even more. they law-abiding folks will be left flapping in the breeze.

you can't legislate personal responsibility or morality. the bad guys could give a rat's *ss what the law says ....

[OB MSG]

In my book, if you want to have a gun, within reason, have a gun, if you don't then don't.

If you feel you want one so you can defend your home, just make sure you drag them back inside before the cops arrive.

But as always, be ready to pay the piper if you do something stupid with it.

[RLeon]

LOL @ the first pic. It looks like some sort of parody.

[FistFu68]

I GREW UP ON "THE MEAN STREETS" OF THE DISTRICT,I BOUGHT AN AK-47 AFTER RETURNING FROM 'NAM FOR A BOTTLE OF CHIVAS REGAL.PLUS AMMO AND TEN MAG'S,THE ONLY THING YOU COULD GET CHEAPER WAS A BLOWJOB;FROM A COLLEGE GIRL AT GEORGETOWN OR HOWARD UNIVERSITY FOR AT DRINK AT THE TOMB'S BAR IN GEORGTOWN.

[mcvet57103]

If the Gov made it a law that all mentally sane individuals were required to own a hand gun, how many muggers, bank robbers, school mass murderers, and the like would think twice about doing their crime?

If you knew every person in a class of 80 callege students was packing, would you pull a gun and start shooting?

Guns save more lives than they take.

You can pry my gun etc etc.

[FistFu68]

NOBODY EVER RAPED A .45

[Zulu 36]

In my book, if you want to have a gun, within reason, have a gun, if you don't then don't.

If you feel you want one so you can defend your home, just make sure you drag them back inside before the cops arrive.

But as always, be ready to pay the piper if you do something stupid with it.

Drag 'em back inside and you'll guarantee a trip to jail for tampering with a crime scene, at the least, which will then make any self-defense claim look bad. What counts is WHERE they were and WHAT they were doing when they were shot. Where they fell down and died is immaterial to a legitimate self-defense claim.

Using the "drag 'em back inside" argument, if the bad guy fell down gravely wounded in your living room, the ambulance took him to the hospital where he died in surgery, you would be guilty of murder. After all, he died out of your house. This argument, of course, is ridiculous.

Let dying criminals lie where they fall.

[Finger]

An armed society is a polite society.

S/F
Finger

[FistFu68]

THAT ONE PUNK,AIN'T GOT NO MAG.IN THAT AUTO-LOAD

[mcvet57103]

Drag 'em back inside and you'll guarantee a trip to jail for tampering with a crime scene, at the least, which will then make any self-defense claim look bad. What counts is WHERE they were and WHAT they were doing when they were shot. Where they fell down and died is immaterial to a legitimate self-defense claim.

Using the "drag 'em back inside" argument, if the bad guy fell down gravely wounded in your living room, the ambulance took him to the hospital where he died in surgery, you would be guilty of murder. After all, he died out of your house. This argument, of course, is ridiculous.

Let dying criminals lie where they fall.

WTF??? If someone invades your home he deserves a round in the skull. I am so sick of the "I'm a victim because I was running away" liberal BS defence.