There’s been a gun ban in Washington DC in some form or another for about 30 years. Though the rates of gun violence over the years remained untouched, even going up in some years, some liberals just don’t get it.
The lack of ability to get a grip on the problem or a solution is evident in the title of this Boston Globe piece: Effectiveness of DC gun bans remains a mystery.
That title should read, “Ineffectiveness of DC gun bans remains a mystery.”
The following mindset is only part of the reason DC’s a festering cesspool of crime and corruption, and I’m not just talking about Capital Hill this time:
“It’s a pretty common-sense idea that the more guns there are around, the more gun violence you’ll have,” D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer said.
It isn’t difficult to see why some problems are never going to be solved.
Okay then why not disarm the security guards in front of the Attorney General’s office so the gun violence rate drops? Why wouldn’t it? After all, there’s a gun ban, so what’s to worry about?
During the decades-long period when private ownership of handguns had been banned in D.C., the murder rate rose Ã¢â‚¬â€œ reaching a high point in 1991, when 80 of every 100,000 D.C. residents was murdered. The operative lesson to be culled from the gun-ban data is that, shockingly, criminals tend to not participate in rigid adherence to laws. What’s the liberal’s answer to control people who don’t obey laws? More laws.
Doesn’t it seem to be the case that gun bans are almost always proposed by politicians, vacuous dunderheaded Hollywood actors and cellulite-brained daytime talk-show hosts like Rosie O’Donnell who employ armed bodyguards? They want you to believe they care deeply about your well-being, but the only point their actions convey is that their ass is worth saving, and yours isn’t.