Thursday, June 26, 2008

What happens to the gun-ban crowd when crime fails to rise in DC?

So here's my prediction, that crime in DC will not rise after the locals start arming themselves. What will the gun-ban folks say when that happens? I heard the mayor of Atlanta, Georgia talking on NPR today about how they won't feel safe if their handgun ban is overturned by the courts. I didn't even know Atlanta had a handgun ban, and I can't seem to find anything about it online. Maybe they're referring to the ban on carry in parks that was just overturned.

Anyway, the question still stands. When gun-ownership in DC inevitably goes up, and crime remains the same or drops, what will they say? This is a very good opportunity for a demonstration of the guns != crime mantra. On the other hand, if the economy dips we could see an increase in crime, especially in a cesspool like DC, so that might work against us. I think in the long run we will see crime remain the same or decrease in DC. Time will tell.

11 Comments:

Anonymous chris naron said...

I think DC will dust off the old Jim Crow handbook and adapt the tactics used to keep black people from voting to keeping citizens of DC from owning hand guns.

I forsee a law stating that if your father couldn't own a hand gun, neither can you.

6/27/2008 4:19 PM  
Blogger Kevin said...

It will be a non-event. Not news. No coverage. Erased from the public memory.

6/28/2008 10:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see.

If DC crime goes down, it's because of increased gun ownership. If crime goes up, it's because the economy is tanking.

Sounds like you have your excuses lined up..

--JadeGold

7/09/2008 6:59 AM  
Blogger carnaby said...

That's not what I wrote. I simply asked what will "they" say when crime fails to rise? In the short term I think crime could increase if the economy falters, that's been the case historically. In general though, there won't be an increase in crime measurable due to guns.

7/09/2008 7:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems as if you want it both ways. Crime generally rises and falls in relation to the economy; you seem to believe an upsurge in crime can only be attributed to a sour economy and not some other factor such as the increased availability of firearms. OTOH, should crime fall--this could only be attributable to gun availability?

Despite your claims about DC being a "cesspool," honesty dictates you acknowledge cities such as Houston and New Orleans with few or no gun laws have high crime rates.

--JadeGold

7/09/2008 7:35 AM  
Blogger carnaby said...

But I didn't write that a decrease in crime could be attributable to gun availability. I wrote that crime will likely remain the same, at worst, in spite of gun availability. Then what?

Yes, other cities have high crime rates, but DC and Chicago, with outright bans, have the worst crime rates. That is interesting, is it not?

My own city of Seattle has very gun-friendly laws, and we have fairly low crime compared to most other cities of our size in the country (e.g. Boston, which has "tougher" gun laws). How can that be if guns cause crime?

7/09/2008 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It might be interesting if it were true.

http://www.statestats.com/cit04pop.htm#CITIES

I'd note most of the metro areas deemed to be most dangerous (crime-ridden) seem to be those with lax gun laws.

--JadeGold

7/09/2008 8:16 AM  
Blogger carnaby said...

Good link!

#1 Detroit, gun laws in the middle.

#4 Camden, NJ has strict gun laws state wide

#5 DC, gun ban

#6 Compton, CA has strict gun laws state wide

#8 Baltimore, strict gun laws

On the other side, safe cities:

#2, El Paso, TX, relatively lax gun laws

#4, Austin, TX, relatively lax gun laws

#7, San Antonio, TX, same

#9, Portland, OR, very lax, can even carry a concealed pistol in elementary schools etc.

#10, Seattle, WA, where I live, and I carry a concealed weapon most places. Only requirements for permit are that you are 21 or older and have no criminal record.

All in all it's a toss up. Some places with strict gun laws are safe, some aren't... some with "lax" gun laws are safe and some aren't. Basically, gun availability is not the deciding factor, and that was the point of my post: that the availability of guns will not affect the crime rate in DC. I never did claim that more guns in DC would decrease the crime rate.

7/09/2008 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In reality, it's the gun fetishists that make the argument crime will be reduced by easy accessibility to firearms. It was certainly the rationale of the SC decision.

7/10/2008 9:34 AM  
Blogger carnaby said...

Anonymous, I disagree about what motivated the SC decision. I think the text of the Second Amendment itself was the motivating factor, thank God.

7/10/2008 10:11 AM  
Blogger Stickwick Stapers said...

Anonymous -- I've never heard any serious 2A proponent argue that overall crime rates will be reduced by legal accessibility to guns. What most argue is that we won't have the "blood in the streets" scenarios predicted by the hand-wringers. And they are correct.

As for "gun fetishist," this confirms something the commenters at TSM claim, which is that there seems to be a lot of projection going on in the anti-gun crowd. You seem to think we get off on some big power-trip or something because we want to own guns. Most of us just want the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones -- and even innocent strangers. We want you to have that right, too. And going to the range is a lot of fun. You ought to try it.

7/10/2008 5:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Testing ...

<< Home