Gun Ban Has Triggered Safety
In 1973, Congress began allowing residents of Washington, D.C., to elect a City Council to handle primary governing functions. After three years, that Council passed the Firearms Control Regulations Act, which continues to prohibit anyone in the District from owning a gun, with the exception of police officers and owners of guns registered before the act took effect. Washington’s gun ban is strict. It’s absolute. And it’s necessary.
Last year, Washington’s gun law became threatened when a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the ban violated a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. After the full appeals court refused to reconsider the decision, the case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to make its decision later this year.
Should the Supreme Court overturn the ban, it will have effectively robbed the District of the ability to determine how to best address its local plague of violent crime.
It may come as a surprise that Washington’s residents would point to a prevalence of violent crime as proof of the need for a comprehensive ban on firearms. After all, criminals would be much less likely to attack students or invade homes if there was a chance that their victims were packing heat, right?
But the truth is, the law works. Soon after the gun ban went into effect, but while the city was still saturated with weapons registered before the ban, crime rates began to rise. By 1991, the D.C. murder rate had reached 80.6 per 100,000 residents. Two and a half percent of all residents, or 14,671 people, had fallen victim to a violent crime.
By that point, Washington had become known as the “murder capital” of the United States.
But soon — as the number of guns presumably began to decline — the long-term effects of the gun ban became clear. By 2005, the murder rate had dropped to 29 per 100,000, and the number of violent crimes had been reduced to 8,032.
The introduction of firearms into a city plagued by violent crime introduces an unnecessary factor to an already unstable equation. If firearms became legal again, the level of criminal activity already present in our streets would most likely return to the unconscionable rates that plagued our neighborhoods just a few years ago.
An argument against the ban is that criminals who commit violent crime in Washington have ready access to firearms in nearby Maryland or Virginia, which can then be carried into the District. As a result, the ban only prohibits law-abiding citizens from acquiring weapons for self-defense. But, rather than provide a compelling reason for a re-introduction of gun sales to D.C., such a position only points to the need to expand strict gun control laws to those areas within and around the Beltway. Criminals intent on committing violent crimes will likely always be able to locate weapons, but criminals’ desire to obtain firearms is not a reason to provide them with a ready supply.
Georgetown is no stranger to D.C.’s violent tendencies. In the past four years, at least two students have experienced the terror of being on the receiving end of a pistol’s bullet. Countless muggings and robberies have plagued the campus and surrounding community for several years, and the criminals who commit these crimes frequently carry firearms.
As this Board has argued before, our community needs to direct efforts toward preventing and prosecuting violent crime. We like Department of Public Safety to expand its surveillance capabilities.
The challenge of creating a safe community is already a daunting goal. With the addition of potentially thousands of firearms, it becomes a nearly impossible one.
It is in the interest of Washington’s residents, and of our campus community, that D.C.’s ban on firearms remain in effect.
Mar 28 2008 at 2:17 p.m.
I am a police officer in this city and you are just foolish. You actually beleive this: "But the truth is, the law works. Soon after the gun ban went into effect, but while the city was still saturated with weapons registered before the ban"?
Bad guys don't use registered guns. Bad guys dont care if it is illegal to have a gun. Bad guys dont care about laws, thats why they are bad guys.
The gun ban in DC is unconstitutional, no matter what the council or citizens of DC want. We cannot pick and choose what parts of the constitution we are going to honor, without a constitutional amendment.
Look at the crime rates just on the other side of the Potomac River from Georgetown. Almost zero! Yet Hoyas are robbed and shot constantly in DC. Why? Because the bad guys know you are not packing heat and that if they do get caught they will serve very little or no time due to the incompetent court system in DC.
On the Virginia side of the Potomac River any citizen can own a handguna nd even carry it with them, without any special permit being required. Are people walking around Arlington blowing each other away? No! The opposite is the case, Arlington's violent crime rate is very low, while DC is astronomical.
The gun ban is stupid, it doesnt work because the very people who it is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of just dont care.
The police cant be everywhere, but armed law abiding citizens can be. DC should follow Virginia's lead.
Mar 28 2008 at 2:46 p.m.
D.C.'s crime rates have fallen from their high points since the introduction of the handgun ban, this is known as correlation. Correlation, as most educated people know, is insufficient to prove causation. Unfortunately, your only "proof" of the law working is that it correlated with a decline in crime. If you want to make the argument convincing, you're going to have to find more than that.
Mar 28 2008 at 3:29 p.m.
Conor is right, and so is the policeman. The only thing that has curbed crime in DC has been the blood and sweat of the cops and more vigilant citizens, and even then we have a long way to go. Ask people who support the unconstitutional gun ban if they should be trusted to defend themselves, they will of course say "yes," but somehow when you ask them if others should be allowed to do the same, they say "no." I'm tired of such hypocrisy from our political elite, and frankly, The Hoya editorial board just sounds like a bunch of naive college kids who think they know best for everyone with this editorial. This country would be a lot better and safer if the government trusted its citizenry and upheld the constitution. I hope the Supreme Court rules likewise.
Mar 28 2008 at 5:30 p.m.
"Unfortunately, your only "proof" of the law working is that it correlated with a decline in crime."
And in addition, this decline in crime during the 90s was observed in almost every major city in the United States. If you had checked the FBI's annual reports on violent crime, freely available on the internet to all citizens, you would have noticed that this falling off of violent crime is hardly unique to DC.
The idea that there are fewer guns in DC since the ban is likely correct, since law-abiding citizens are no longer willing to possess them. However, to think that criminals have fewer guns because of the ban is a very silly and naive way of looking at the world when handguns can be bought without restriction just across the river. Criminals have friends without felonious records who can buy guns for them (the 'Straw Purchase'), and they seem to have also mastered the technology of riding the metro to VA.
Mar 29 2008 at 3:58 p.m.
According to this article, gun crime rose for 20 years after the gun ban, then took almost 15 more years to decline.
Gun control sure does work!
Mar 29 2008 at 4:15 p.m.
Had it ever occured to the denizens of DC that faulty individual character is what drives people to steal and murder, not the presence of weapons? Not amazing that banning the weapons did nothing to improve the ill character of the people there, or curb their crimes above the national average.
WHEN will people realize that the quality of the character of individual citizens is what needs to be addressed? A lawful and responsible person is no threat with a weapon. It is the criminal and irresponsibly minded that present the danger to society, armed or unarmed.
Mar 29 2008 at 9:55 p.m.
Crime never went down in DC and gun control does not stop the criminals from having guns, it only stops the law abiding citizen from having the ability to protect themselves. Criminals are criminals cause they don't follow the laws we have now, another law will just be ignored. Criminals don't obtain guns legaly. It is in the best interest of every law abiding citizen that the gun ban be stuck down.
Mar 29 2008 at 11:46 p.m.
To paraphrase, denying law-abiding DC citizens their Constitutionally guaranteed right did not reduce crime. The only solution therefore is that we should deny MORE people these rights! Then surely criminals will stop robbing, killing, and raping people!
Mar 30 2008 at 1:45 a.m.
The constitution exists to protect us from the crooked and the stupid. And, by extension, that is what the Second Amendment does. Unless we are betrayed by a crooked and stupid judiciary. Let us pray that the present Supreme Court is neither.
Mar 30 2008 at 3:38 a.m.
I have debated this for some time as I read these anti self defense articles if I really want to risk exposing the fact that I am a violent convicted felon who has served over eighteen years in prison for violent crimes including assault with a deadly weapon. Some were even committed while in prison. More on that later.
Through the grace of God and 12 step recovery I have been drug free and out of prison for almost twenty years. Now the truth is if I got what I deserved I would still be in prison or on death row. For 22 years I dealt drugs and preyed upon anyone weaker than me. With the exception of crimes against children & women I committed most every crime known to man. I did not care about the law or how much anyone suffered as long as I got my way. I have never owned a legal gun but you can rest assured I kept guns with me at all times. Not any of those guns were legally purchased. Why would I want a gun that could be traced back to me and connect me to a crime? Why would any criminal buy a legal gun ever? May as well as leave a business card at the crime scene. When I went to rob or assault anyone rest assured I looked for victims not opponents. I picked people and places that were unarmed and defenseless. If I wanted to work for a living I'd have gotten a job. I looked for and found easy prey. That is why 7/11s get robbed more than banks. Banks have a lot more money, they also have armed guards. While 7/11 does not allow employees to have guns. Some even ban customers from having guns. They call those Gun Free Zones, we call them easy pickings, Stop & Robs or Free Crimes zones. After all they made sure I was safe from being hurt.
Now some would say if you took all the guns away. People like me could not hurt other people or prey upon others as I have done. Remember I said I would get back to this. In prison only the guards have guns. Much the way some think an utopian society would be, where only the police and the military have guns. Well prison is like that. None of the population are allowed to have guns. Since everyone and everything that comes into prison has to be searched and go through metal detectors they do a pretty good job of keeping guns out of prison. But guess what. You may not have heard this. Even though it is not a big secret. Prisons, these places with no guns except for armed law enforcement are extremely violent places. Many convicts stab, rob, rape and even kill others, all the time. Every day in every prison. Some would say it is much more violent than anywhere outside of prison. Just like in the real world we would break the law and make other weapons, knives, clubs, bombs or whatever it took for us to TAKE what we wanted. Look, guns are just a tool like a hammer. If you outlaw the hammers, we'd just use a rock to drive that nail in. See it is not a matter of we would use a rock to crush a skull if guns are taken away. Rather it is we HAVE taken rocks to crush skulls, in the absence of guns. Gun laws and guns are irrelevant unless the victim has a gun. Then of course we are nice to them.
The point of all this is to say I was not unlike every other thief & drug addict out there. The law is just not relevant, it amazes me that people can not figure that out. Criminals break the law. As long as there are those like me that are selfish and self centered and greed driven, people will get hurt. The only thing that has ever stopped me was a gun, either a cops gun or a citizens gun. That is why I was such a big fan of the gun control. Just like every criminal on the planet we do not want our prey our victims to be able to defend yourself or stop us from doing what we want. I have known every kind of degenerate you can imagine. including serial killer and rapists. The one thing we all have in common is that we do not want you, our victims to be able to defend yourself or stop us from doing what ever we want.
So when your children get gunned down in a "Gun Free Zone" or your baby girl gets rapped by some AIDS infected psychopath. DO NOT ask why. I just told you why. You helped it happen. You protected the criminal and made sure your children would be defenseless victims.
Mar 30 2008 at 4:24 a.m.
How foolish can one be? The violent crime rate in DC is one of the highest in the country and has been for years. DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the country and has had them for years. Which part of this doesn't compute? Gun control doesn't work, just look at DC. Many things cause crime and violence but fixing those things takes more than a "feel good" law to ban firearms. The Supreme Court sees this and will change the way DC has to approach its crime rate. Maybe this will force others to quit blaming an inanimate object for the action of bad people and try to fix the real problem.
Mar 30 2008 at 7:56 a.m.
The author has already been shown a fool or ignorant of the topic (another form of foolishness when you choose to write), and his case has been refuted but overlooked was this simple fact:
Murder rates went UP during the years of the gun ban (every year except one), and went up MORE as compared to other large cities to disallow the notion that DC's status as a large city and drug infested swamp is somehow unique.
The ban didn't work -- and would be unconstitutional if it did.
Arguing for "local control" when RIGHTS are being violated is precisely equal to arguing the power of the southern states to enforce "Jim Crow" laws on blacks after the civil war.
In fact, with a largely Afro-American population one might easily wonder if those suggesting DC needs a gun ban more than other locations, are themselves racists.
Mar 30 2008 at 10:59 p.m.
The Hoya must be a kindergarten newsrag, not one from an intelligent college. Your comment is the dumbest thing I ever heard. I grew up in a rural area of Alabama. There were a series of robberies attacks that occurred occurred over a period of months but never down in the hollow. When the guy was finally caught, he was asked about his crime spree, he said he had the run of the county except for the hollows.
"Crazy Old Lady Mills & her husband would have shot me to pieces, they always coon hunt in the hollows at night". This from a man who robbed & raped 13 women and was suspected of 8 more similar crimes over an 18 month period. He was only caught after drunkenly falling asleep in a victim's barn and being cornered by her husband's hunting dogs and unable to reach his gun. Criminals don't observe laws and will always find a way to get weapons. They love defenseless victims and only fear those who can defend themselves. When gun laws keep people from owning guns, only the criminals are armed and an unarmed person is a victim. It does not take a college degree to see that.
Mar 30 2008 at 11:15 p.m.
This Editorial shows poor fact checking - DC residents continue to lawfully buy and own long guns, provided they register them.
The legal issues being litigated in the Heller case are that (1) these long guns must always be kept unloaded and either trigger locked or disassembled, and, (2) that handguns are banned.
I find it pretty curious that not only is the Hoya Editorial Board oblivious to the Second Amendment, but that they seem to not care about the Fourth Amendment either and beg for yet even more police surveillance!
Mike Stollenwerk
President
Georgetown Law-Militia
http://www.law-militia.org
Mar 31 2008 at 12:01 a.m.
I find it it so refreshing that the American people are no longer buying the load of crap that the anti-gun crowd has been spewing for far too long. In spite of all the blatant lies the American people realize that founders of this country knew what they were doing when they created the bill of rights. The best defense against crime is each and every one of us maintaining and exercising our God given right to defend ourselves. In all cases where this right was attacked and denied we have seen the overwhelming opposite effect of what the anti-gun crowd said would happen. FBI data proves that less gun control = less crime and more gun control = more crime. I am thrilled that we are overcoming these blatantly evil lies and agenda and coming back around to our founding principles. Now lets get to work solving some of the other attacks on our bill of rights brought to us by the fictitious war on terror and the fascist NEOCONS.
Mar 31 2008 at 4:40 a.m.
The DC gun ban is unconstitutional. Period. 911 calls get dropped, and they are useless during home invasions, car-jackings, or public abductions. In countries where people are disarmed, they are preyed upon by criminals, corrupt government officials, the military, and even the police. Human nature will not change. Women are generally smaller and weaker than their attackers, and a gun is the only tool that levels the playing field. We must never give up our rights. Self-inflicted tyranny will not make us safer.
Mar 31 2008 at 11:47 a.m.
I find it interesting that the writer completely neglects the extreme rise in crime after the gun ban. He passes it off as a natural series of events, as if 400 murders a year were natural. The writer also ingores the fact that in the mid 90's the three strikes laws were introduced, heavy penalties for crack use were implemented also. This resulted in getting the criminals off the streets. Funny how that works, put the criminals in jail and crime is reduced. I guess we cannot do that as it would be unfair?
Mar 31 2008 at 12:43 p.m.
I'm certainly thankful that my father graduated from Georgetown University prior to the influx to of the criminal element that has made a disgrace of our Nation's Capitol. I'm especially glad there were no P.C. types around at that time trying to strip the populace of any deterant to crime against their person. If there had been, he may not have survived long enough to have sired me.
PFM 3/31/08
Mar 31 2008 at 4:26 p.m.
I am amased how the editors ignore facts like the constitution.
A Federal firearms law that makes any crime with a firearm a MANDITORY 5 year prison term! The district attornies in D.C. and every other state choose to ignore the law that is intended to keep the pepetrators of the crime behind bars. Instead this is not prosicuted and the violent criminals go free to continue attacking "resticted" citizens (Sheeple are easy targets). I am tired of the elites wishing that the boogie man of firearms will go away by legislating the behavior, does anyone remember the Volsted act! Controlling citizens in not the problem, controlling criminals is.
The naivety of the editors implies that we would be better off without firearms. But research from Britain and Austraila indicate that burglarys and home invasions go up when firearms are kept from the citizenry.
Keep in mind that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police can not be sued if they do not show up in time to prevent your murder, rape, or robbery. The police are protected by the clause of a collective right not an individual right to protection.
So the police can show up and put you in a body bag after you disarm yourself or you can be able to defend your life! You choose. I find that the arugments of rights overwhelm the choice of respnsibilities. The responsible person needs to have the ability to protect themselves and not hope for police protection or devine intervention for there safety.
Apr 01 2008 at 2:43 a.m.
I hope that the response to this editorial serves as a strong reminder to the Hoya staff in general, and the Hoya editorial board in particular. A reminder of what?
On the complimentary side: that your articles and op-eds are read - indeed, are likely increasingly read via your push into online distribution (last 10 years) and your opening up to discussion-board style comments.
On the critical side: that you need to make sure to: a. fact check, b. research, c. put your best writers (rather than your most popular or most vocal) into the most prominent positions, d. create logical and coherent arguments.
The paper failed on all four accounts. It shows. To be honest, I'm a bit embarassed. Everything the Hoya publishes reflects on Georgetown's reputation (and her students' reputations) whether directly or indirectly, and whether we like it or not. Hastily jotted off pieces such as this do no service to the school, the students, or this paper.
Do better next time. We're all watching.
Apr 02 2008 at 12:30 p.m.
The idea that DC would be "effectively robbed the District of the ability to determine how to best address its local plague of violent crime" is preposterous. Since when is curtailing the freedoms protected by our US Constitution taking away from the powers granted to the District? Now we hear of door-to-door searches for guns in the DC homes "with consent". Civil liberties in the District are eroding, as is the character of the government officials that are elected to serve the people. Treating the people as vassals seems to be their goal. If they wanted to serve their constituents, they should encourage the value of family and social responsibility. Neighborhood watches are not effective if the neighborhood watch participants are threatened with bodily harm and left dependent on the inadequate response time of the local police force. Self-reliance is the mark of a truly free person. That should be the goal of DC residents. Be reliant on government to redress the wrongs committed by those that break the law, but don't disarm the law-abiding citizen that merely wants to protect his or her family and property.
Apr 10 2008 at 3:57 a.m.
I find it very reassuring that not a single person, chose to defend this ....story. I read so many good responses that I can hardly add to what has already been written. So I will summarize: 1) when firearms are outlawed, outlaws have no problem finding, and using firearms, 2) Criminals, by definition, are not law abiding (over-simplification for the learning impaired), so laws only affect those that are law abiding, 3) the facts dont lie, this gun ban DOES NOT WORK and will continue to do the same. If you have any questions, read what other scribes have penned before my brilliant remarks. Thank You.
Apr 11 2008 at 7:57 a.m.
This is the best parody I've read in a long time; the author must be a true student of Jonathan Swift. The writer treated the inherent logical inconsistencies of those who favor firearms bans as if they were nonexistent; and the humor stems entirely from the apparent obliviousness to the internal contradictions in the arguments for the purported editorial position.
Kudos on this brilliant send up of a popular editorial position.