The Ban Against Public Safety

[Superfly]

Link

<snip>

Since 1976, D.C. residents have lived under the nation's most restrictive gun laws: Police enforce a citywide handgun ban, and local statutes require residents to keep long guns disassembled, unloaded and locked up. The law even forbids target shooting. Those who envision the United States as a violent cowboy nation might take comfort in knowing that this regime offers more restrictions than the laws anywhere else in the United States, in Canada, or indeed, in any major European Union nation.


<snip>

Had the law worked, the relative lack of controversy wouldn't surprise anyone. But, instead, the law hasn't done anything to reduce violence. Last year, the District, never far out of the running, reclaimed the title of the U.S. murder capital among the 30 most populous cities.

<snip>

"It is time to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and to defend their families against murderous predators," says Mr. Hatch.

<snip>

And D.C. residents need more protection: Crime has risen significantly since the gun ban went into effect. In the five years before Washington's ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. In fact, the murder rate after 1976 has never fallen back to what it was in 1976.

[MrBenchley]

1. So that's what Sun Myung Moon is lying about today!

No wonder you posted "link" instead of the url...

Of course, the "Messiah" owns a handgun company.....

[Superfly]

2. Wow...It didn't take you long

to crawl out of your hole.

I posted "link" to shorten the URL and make the post look better.

OK, Mr Smartypants...what in this article is a lie? Or are you just going to throw assinine jabs and never discuss the issue?

[CO Liberal]

4. The Washington Times Is a Lying Rag of a Paper

It's no more reputable a source than NewsMax or the Limbaugh Letter. Unless the same article is posted in a more reputable soource, you can assume it's crap.

[Superfly]

6. I conducted a poll, right here on DU,

about a month ago...go ahead and search for it. The majority of DUers believe that it is a worthy piece of journalism.

B

[CO Liberal]

8. I Wouldn't Wrap Fish With the Washington Times

It would make the fish smell bad.

[CO Liberal]

13. Even Better - I'll Conduct My Own Poll

Look for it on the General Discussion Board.

[Superfly]

17. OK, but make it impartial

and fair. I'm curious to see what people think, too.

B

[MrBenchley]

28. Not looking so good for the moonies...

Better than three to one against the Messiah's propaganda rag...

[MrBenchley]

48. Well, the people have spoken

and it don't seem very good for the kook from Korea...DUers think his newspaper is a stinker by a four to one margin.

[556]

54. Just like..............

CNN and the New York Times.

[Spentastic]

5. I hate this kind of stuff

It's sloppy non scientific useless rubbish.

"But, instead, the law hasn't done anything to reduce violence. Last year, the District, never far out of the running, reclaimed the title of the U.S. murder capital among the 30 most populous cities."


Er? What if violence would have involved twice as many people dying? What if the gun ban slowed the rate of violence is that not worthy?

"In fact, the murder rate after 1976 has never fallen back to what it was in 1976. "

Neither has the price of beer. I blame the gun ban for beer prices going up.

[MrBenchley]

9. The hole is wherever Moonies gather

You mean it really has to be explained to you that the Washington Times is right wing crap?

[billbuckhead]

3. I bet the residents would rather be a state than have guns

After all why should Wyoming which has less people have 2 senators? Maybe if they had a real democratic government they would get the crime under control. The reality is that it is an occupied city like Baghdad. Gunwackos like the D.C. crime rate because they push the "problems" associated with guns on urban African-Americans. Notice the gun whores never mention pro gun control Hawaii's incredibly low crime rates?

[billbuckhead]

7. Washington Times ? John Lott?

Why would any progressive person be quoting these "sources"? It must be some other agenda.

[Superfly]

10. What, pray tell, is my agenda

since you are just coming short of accusing me of something, how bout stepping up to the plate and coming out with it?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

12. Not-so-new Tactic

I have noticed a return to 'If you dont believe in gun control you arent a Democrat, or a Progressive' or words to that effect by those opposed to RKBA.

In otherwords it is a nice way of accusing you of being a freeper without actually doing it.

[MrBenchley]

14. Same old crap

Now, which online board is it that constantly posts right wing horseshit from Newsmax, the Washington Times, World Nut Daily, Rupert Murdoch, etc. and expects its inbred readers to swallow it whole?

I think the initals are F.R.

[Superfly]

16. Are you going to say it?

Or are you afraid to just come out and speak your mind? Go for it. Let's hear it.

[MrBenchley]

19. I just said it

plain and clear.

[Superfly]

21. No you didn't

and it's just indicative of your tendencey to evade. C'mon, say it. I double dare you.

[MrBenchley]

23. I double triple dog dare you

to tell us what website posts crap from the Washington Times for its simple minded Nazi followers and has the initials F. R.

[Superfly]

24. OK...

despite what you think of the author and the publication, what is wrong with the article?

[MrBenchley]

25. Do you have to taste every turd to know they're all shit?

Too too too funny.

[Superfly]

27. See?

You will not discuss the issue. Instead, you resort to little quips and jabs. (The same ones over and over again...lacking creativity?)

[MrBenchley]

30. I AM discussing the issue

which is the gullibility of RKBA enthusiasts and their apparent fondness for extremist right wing opinion.

[Superfly]

32. Go to reply 31

and let's start the discussion over, shall we?

B

[Spoonman]

47. Once again.........

You declare your expert knowledge of shit.

[MrBenchley]

49. I sure see enough of it from the RKBA crowd

what's next from you guys? Articles from Stormfront? Southern Partisan?

[MrBenchley]

26. By the way, are you dodging the dare?

C'mon...you can tell us. What right wing loony website posts crap from Sun Myung Moon all the time for its ignorant followers and goes by the initials F.R.?

For bonus points, can you tell us what the feeble minded followers of that website are called?

[MrBenchley]

34. I guess someone is dodging that dare...

To quote a fellow "Democrat": "are you afraid to just come out and speak your mind? Go for it. Let's hear it."

[Superfly]

36. OK, that website is

Free Republic and the people who go there are called Freepers.

Is that what you were calling me?

B

[MrBenchley]

39. See

What I said was perfectly clear.

Do you want to identify yourself with them?

[Spentastic]

18. If you lie with dogs

I have no axe to grind here. Believe it or not I'm pretty much ambivalent about gun control in the U.S. Hey! I don't live there.

But you must be aware that some of those that purport to be spokespersons for the movement Lott, Nugent, Heston and Larouche have in fact demonstrated tendencies that could never be viewed as progressive.

What the pro gun side needs is proper representation. If you give stats by Lott don't be surprised when you get torn apart. If you quote Nugent don't be surprised if the rest of the speech is provided.Heston, well I don't believe that anyone here is that dim.

[Superfly]

22. Being called a Freeper

is NOT what I call being torn apart.

OK, so Lott is a piece of shit, etc, etc, etc, but what, in this article, is wrong?

[Spentastic]

29. O.K this article

Makes the leap from from empirical evidence and then asserts causality based on a hypothesis sympathetic to the authors viewpoint.

Rather like saying "I forgot to tie my shoelaces this morning and I crashed my car. Therefore if I tie my shoe laces I won't have car crashes"

This does not constitute scientific method.

[Superfly]

31. OK...that's a start

The facts as I see them in this article:

1) Washington DC has a handgun ban and strict ownership requirements for long guns, since 1976. (Fact or lie?)

2) Washington DC is the murder capital of the US. (Fact or lie?)

3) Crime, and crime comitted with firearms has continued to rise since 1976. (Fact or lie?)

4) Victims of said crimes are not empowered to carry firearms in their defense. (fact or lie?)

Assertion: Citizens should be allowed to carry weapons for their defense in DC, and the handgun ban should be repealed.

[MrBenchley]

33. Wow.....

Only someone who owned a handgun factory would think that was a valid assertion....Hey, wait a minute...who owns a handgun factory that we know?

Oh yeah, the guy who published this article.....a crazed cult leader who claims to be the messiah but is in fact a criminal.

See, that wasn't so hard.

[Superfly]

35. Ummm...that was MY assertion

and the last time I looked, I don't own any firearms factories.

That was my interpretation of the facts and my assertion at the end.

But, knowing your penchant for glazing over the facts, I forgive you.

B

[Man_in_the_Moon]

38. Here is something interesting

I wonder if I own a 'firearm factory'?

After all I am Class 2 SOT.

So I would say that technically I do.

[MrBenchley]

42. That's what you think

(snicker)

[MrBenchley]

41. Wow, who's glazing over facts NOW?

You mean that we're supposed to believe that entire pile of rubbish from the messiah isn't pimping for gun sales in any way?

It is JUST amazing that you were able to come up with that totally independent assertion after reading a pile of right wing nut propaganda.

[Superfly]

43. That was my belief

before I ever read this article.

[MrBenchley]

45. So in other words

The article (from a lunatic criminal who claims to be the messiah and a crackpot posing as a scientist) was just a stalking horse from the start.

[Superfly]

46. No...

the article was just that. An article. It happens to have some of the same beliefs I do. Beliefs that I formulated on my own.

[Spentastic]

37. O.K let's play stats

"1) Washington DC has a handgun ban and strict ownership requirements for long guns, since 1976. (Fact or lie?)"

Fact

"2) Washington DC is the murder capital of the US. (Fact or lie?)"

Fact but may have no relation to "1" whatever.

"3) Crime, and crime comitted with firearms has continued to rise since 1976. (Fact or lie?)"

Dunno source data unavailable but lets say fact. Has no relation to 1 or 2

"4) Victims of said crimes are not empowered to carry firearms in their defense. (fact or lie?)"

Fact

"Assertion: Citizens should be allowed to carry weapons for their defense in DC, and the handgun ban should be repealed."

Er, I'm sorry but the "facts" that you have presented don't suggest that this is any more a sensible option that doing anything else?

For example was there crime when firearms were allowed in DC?

[Superfly]

40. Yes, there was crime

More points:

1) There will always be crime, in Washington DC, and in other parts of the world (Fact or lie)

2) Those who comitt crime will always have access to illegal guns, despite any bans. (fact or lie)

Assertion: given that criminals will always have access to guns, citizens should be able to be equally armed if they wish.

B

[Spentastic]

50. Game on

1) There will always be crime, in Washington DC, and in other parts of the world (Fact or lie)

Now perhaps I'm just stupid enough to believe in a truly equitable society the need for crime would be negated. But since it's unlikely this Utopia will ever be seen I'll give you fact.

2)Those who comitt crime will always have access to illegal guns, despite any bans. (fact or lie).

Well ease of access is an issue. But those embarking on criminal enterprises will of course manage to get guns.


"Assertion: given that criminals will always have access to guns, citizens should be able to be equally armed if they wish"

Not if the consequences of arming non criminals outweighs the benefits of an armed citizenry. Child death, Gun theft etc etc. Additionally do criminals carry guns to use in self defence?

[MrBenchley]

44. Looky here...

"Dallas is on pace to have the highest crime rate among the nation's largest cities for the sixth year in a row, fueled in part by a 72 percent spike in homicides, according to statistics for the first half of this year.
A Dallas resident was twice as likely to be a crime victim than someone from Los Angeles, statistics through the end of June show. And, if projections hold true, the numbers average out to nearly one in 10 residents being victims by year's end.
Crime in the city this year is up from the same period last year, not only for homicides but also for robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries, thefts and auto thefts. "

http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/073003dnmetcrimestats.1172f.html

But Dallas has next to no gun control....shouldn't it be the SAFEST city in the US?

Gee, do you think John Lott might be totally full of crap?

[Cthulu_2004]

51. that's always bothered me...

"If you give stats by Lott don't be surprised when you get torn apart."

Aren't we supposed to be arguing issues, and not personalities? Isn't statistics supposed to be a science? If so, shouldn't people be trying to refute the statistics themselves and not the author?

Attacking the person and not the real issues has always struck me as a right-wing tactic. Take Bill Clinton, for example. He has a fucked up personal life, with certain "issues" based upon sex. I don't think ANYBODY would deny that. Yet he was a GREAT President, not because of his personal life, but because of what he did "on the job". Republicans couldn't attack him for his job performance, so they went after him personally. It's generally easier to do that, but it's still a scummy tactic.

[MrBenchley]

52. There's a BIG difference

Lott's a pseudoscientist paid by the gun industry to lie. As one real scientist said, "He doesn't prove there are more guns, he lies about there being less crime, and he fails to show any relationship between the two."

[Spentastic]

53. This is how academia works

Credibility is pretty much everything.

Lott has been caught misrepresenting himself. That alone is pretty bad, probably not fatal. But claiming to have lost your study data is. In fact it's possible to argue that the study is entirely invalid as the source data cannot be reviewed by an adequate peer group.

The problem is you can't refute the stats because you can't get them. Furthermore as a proven shoody academic why would anyone in their right mind believe anything he says? Be aware the same goes for those on the anti side as well.

The reason Lott's methodology is questionable is because it is Lott carrying out the work and he is a fraud.

Clinton was not publishing academic work. He was President. Lying was a mistake but getting your dick sucked and being President are not related. Being a liar whilst publishing works is considerably worse.

[MrBenchley]

11. Ditto, Rush! Mega-dittos!

It's amazing what crap the RKBA crowd dredges up and asks sane people here to believe....

It's even funnier to think that some people are dumb enough to believe what a cult leader who claims to be the messiah tells them,...especially when that asswipe owns a gun company...

[Superfly]

15. Like I said....

Instead of just hurling insults and jabs, how about BEING AN ADULT and discussing what you think the "lies" are and what the real "truth" is?

This ought to be good......

Waiting......

[MrBenchley]

20. And like I said

If you really have to be told that the messiah is a piece of crap and that a guy who owns a gun factory is biased, there's little hope in having an adult discussion with you.

"what the real "truth" is?"
The real truth is that anybody who quotes the Washington Times and expects honest sane people to buy it deserves what they get.