D.C. Gun Ban: Why Let Facts Get In The Way

[AK-74me]

FOXNews.com - John R. Lott Jr.: D.C. Gun Ban Proponents Ignore the Facts - Opinion

John R. Lott Jr.: D.C. Gun Ban Proponents Ignore the Facts
Tuesday, March 11, 2008

By John R. Lott, Jr. and Maxim Lott

E-Mail Respond Print Share:
DiggFacebookStumbleUpon
For gun control proponents and opponents a lot is riding on a former security guard for the Supreme Court Annex. Next Tuesday , the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and its requirement that any rifles or shotguns remain locked violates the plaintiff, Dick Heller's, constitutional rights.

Whatever the court decides, no one expects them to end gun control any more than the First Amendment's "congress shall make no laws" has prevented the passage of campaign finance regulations. The decision is likely to be limited to just whether a ban "infringed" on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

If the D.C. ban is accepted by the court, it is hard to believe that any gun regulation will ever be struck down. If the court strikes it down, where the courts draw the line on what laws are considered "reasonable" regulations will take years to sort out .

Thus far the District of Columbia has spent a lot of time making a public policy case. Their argument in their brief to the court is pretty simple : "banning handguns saves lives."

Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.'s experience.

The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985) when D.C.'s murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. But the murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years we have data after the ban, D.C.'s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth.

For Instance, D.C.'s murder rate fell 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia's during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977, but rose 3.8 times more in the five years after it.

Was there something special about D.C. that kept the ban from working? Probably not, since bans have been causing crime to increase in other cities as well. D.C. cites the Chicago ban to support its own. Yet, before Chicago's ban in 1982, its murder rate, which was falling from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years, suddenly stopped falling and rose slightly to 23 per 100,000 in the five years afterwards.

cont. in link

 

[Larry Gude]

This seems...

Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.'s experience.

...no more obvious to me than "banning fire extinguishers will prevent fires" or "banning seat belts will prevent auto accidents".

This is Orwellian.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

...no more obvious to me than "banning fire extinguishers will prevent fires" or "banning seat belts will prevent auto accidents".

This is Orwellian.

What hack wrote that line? Socialists can't handle the truth!

 

[aps45819]

From the first gun laws written in the Virgina colony, gun control is designed to disarm black people and make them more dependant on the the masser.
It worked for the slave owner and now the smiling democrat mayor sees gun control as a way to insure the black man's dependence on the good will of the "nanny" government.

 

[AK-74me]

From the first gun laws written in the Virgina colony, gun control is designed to disarm black people and make them more dependant on the the masser.
It worked for the slave owner and now the smiling democrat mayor sees gun control as a way to insure the black man's dependence on the good will of the "nanny" government.

The funny, not funny as in HAHA, thing is, is that the people that gun control has been the worse to are the biggest supporters of it, IN GENERAL.

Jews and Blacks......... makes no sense.