4 Comments

  1. Carol Lewis
    April 3, 2009 @ 12:42 pm

    I was under the impression that all citizens of the United States have a right vote on issues and have the right to have representives to watch over thier rights as a citizen of this country.This is reguardless of their race, religion,gender or locallity of residence. How then can the city that is called the capital of our nation can restrict their own residents of the same

    Reply

  2. Kathy Hendrickson
    April 4, 2009 @ 3:01 am

    As far as guns and the right to vote – two very different subjects but with one answer. The citizens of Washington, DC deserve to have both.

    I’d like to comment on your statement that this bill would allow teenagers to own automatic weapons? Really – teenagers? You say it would prohibit DC from passing laws that would discourage gun ownership by children? Felons? Seriously?

    Also you say that this law will make Washington DC less safe? And many readers would automatically agree after all, those states (33?) that allow their citizens to “carry” guns – most certainly should have higher crime statistics than say states that have the most stringent gun control – right (like New York, New Jersey)? With this in mind, we can admit that the stringent gun control in Washington DC has kept the crime rate low (after all – guns = crime right).

    Or is it ILLEGAL guns = crime regardless of the location? (I’m assuming you equate crime with safety of course)!

    Well I just want to prompt people to STOP and think and ask – Do the states with the most lenient gun control have the highest crime rates? Do states with the most stringent gun control have the lowest crime rates? Unfortunately the answer to both is No. My point is perhaps you can stop equating SAFETY with Less Guns and begin to equate SAFETY with less “illegal” guns.

    This bills only address’s “legal” gun ownership and of course the right to vote for the citizenry of DC.

    Reply

  3. Sergei Rostov
    April 19, 2009 @ 11:15 pm

    K.H. says:

    “Well I just want to prompt people to STOP and think and ask – Do the states with the most lenient gun control have the highest crime rates? Do states with the most stringent gun control have the lowest crime rates? Unfortunately the answer to both is No. ”

    Incorrect.

    In the 90s, while crime nationally was dropping an average of 30%, in states with less stringent gun laws crime dropped dropped only 15%. [Dept of Justice]
    The only scientific study on the issue of concealed carry and crime was done by the National Academy of Sciences, which showed it had NO impact on reducing crime, but DID decrease public safety.
    Where more legal guns are present, it is more likely that a crime would involve violence, and the level of that violence is higher. [Natl Acad of Sci]
    Forty percent of guns used in crimes in the US are obtained through legal channels; which means more legal guns lead to more crime, not just more illegal ones.[Dept of Justice]
    A member of a gun-owning household is 43 times more likely to be killed by a gun than a member of a non-gun-owning household. [Dept of Justice]
    Since guns are as good as cash on the street, a gun in a home makes it 3% more likely that that home will be burgled; that’s 63,000 more burglaries in 2004 alone just from gun ownership. [Dept of Justice]
    For well over 30 years, police-run personal self-defense courses in the U.S. have taught that carrying gun is counter-productive in that the risk of it being taken away from you and used against you is greater than the likelihood that you will be able to use it effectively.
    Extrapolating from the last two points, being known to be carrying a gun makes you more likely to be a victim of a crime, rather than less (or, as I like to put it: “Sneak, sneak, sneak, bonk! Now I have a gun.”)

    So we see that actual science, actual facts – as opposed to your wishful thinking – shows us that less stringent gun laws DO mean more crime.

    But that was not the question: the question was, what do guns and voting have to do with each other? The fact you didn’t answer it – and substituted a different question – would seem to indicate you don’t have an answer.

    “As far as guns and the right to vote – two very different subjects but with one answer. The citizens of Washington, DC deserve to have both.”

    The citizens of Wasington DC decided they didn’t WANT guns, whether they “deserve” them or not is again not the issue – another attempt on your part to mislead.

    “I’d like to comment on your statement that this bill would allow teenagers to own automatic weapons? Really – teenagers? You say it would prohibit DC from passing laws that would discourage gun ownership by children? Felons? Seriously?”

    Yes, the bill overrides all local gun laws, present and future. In other words, it is in taking away DC residents right to vote for gun laws which are in keepng with the US Constitution.

    Sergei Rostov

    Reply

  4. air soft
    May 19, 2011 @ 2:02 am

    This gun measure is more than symbolism, or politics: It’s about public safety. Specifically, the gun amendment would undermine federal anti-trafficking laws, repeal D.C.’s ban on military-style weapons, allow teenagers to possess semiautomatic assault rifles, and prohibit D.C. from passing laws that could “discourage” gun possession or use, by anyone – even children or felons.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *