Let's not forget the 1998 US Capital shooting, where two Capital Police officers were killed and three people wounded:
It seems there are other shooting incidents, but unlike this one, which actually occurred inside the Capital, they are usually on Capital grounds.
Note how people act as if it is a normal event in the above clip.
There was another shooting inside the Capital in 1954.
Of course, that was back when DC led the nation with a homicide rate of 50/100k.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1998/98sec2.pdf
And of course, they had had a ban on the possession of handguns in place since 1975.
No ban works perfectly, but they do reduce gun violence.
DeleteOr was your point, ssgmarkcr, that gun guys aren't law abiding, and can too easily purchase firearms because of the lack of background checks?
"No ban works perfectly, but they do reduce gun violence."
DeleteLets look at how well that worked back then,
DC homicide rate 50/100k and violent crime rate 1,718/100k.
Maryland homicide rate 796/100k and violent crime rate 10/100k.
Then lets look at another neighbor of DC, Virginia,
Virginia homicide rate, 6.2/100k and violent crime rate 325/100k.
Same source as above. Another excellent example is Chicago during its unconstitutional ban on handguns. It will be interesting to watch over the next several years to see if the recent passage of a shall issue carry permit system affects violent crime there.
I believe there is a hearing coming up on the recent Palmer v. DC decision also in that DC has recently passed a very restrictive may issue permit system and the judge will be deciding on whether it meets his expectations.
"An attorney who successfully challenged the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying handguns outside the home said Thursday that the centerpiece of new gun legislation passed by the D.C. Council is unconstitutional and that a judge should keep it from going into effect."
"Gura wrote in a court filing Thursday that when U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin found the District’s ban on carrying handguns outside the home unconstitutional earlier this year, he barred the city from enforcing its law until it put in place a constitutionally acceptable system for people to get permits to carry guns. Gura wrote that the city failed to enact such a system and the judge should make clear that his injunction stands to bar enforcement."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/2/dc-gun-law-still-unconstitutional-attorney-says/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
No ban works perfectly...
DeleteHey, how did that ban on alcohol work out? How about that ban on drugs? How's that working? Howsabout immigration bans?
In fact, the more things are forbidden, the more popular they become.
It is the prohibition that makes anything precious.
- Mark Twain's Notebook
orlin sellers
There are many reasons for violence; this doesn't show that gun bans don't reduce that. You have to compare it to a lot of factors. What we DO know is that guns don't reduce crime, and that states with the most lax gun laws and with the most guns have the most gun violence.
DeleteAnd you don't appear to argue either that this shows gun guys aren't law abiding.
"There are many reasons for violence; this doesn't show that gun bans don't reduce that."
DeleteThe numbers certainly don't support their effectiveness either. As I said, Chicago has the potential to show how a change in gun laws can have an effect on violent crime. Though I'll predict that if there is a noticeable decrease, Chief McCarthy will likely take credit for it.
"What we DO know is that guns don't reduce crime, and that states with the most lax gun laws and with the most guns have the most gun violence."
Except for DC of course. At the time of the shooting you posted, there had been a ban in effect for over 20 years, yet it led the nation in homicide and violent crime rates. I know, other factors, right?
DC could potentially be another fascinating demonstration if Palmer v. DC stands and is enforced in such a way as to enable citizens to carry for self defense. We can but hope that crime rates would fall in line with gun friendly states such as say, Virginia.
The infiltration of guns is so deep it's hard to tell what laws will work. It's to easy to get guns even if there are bans (which I don't support). It's dishonest to say because laws work in one town and not another, that they don't work nationwide to help reduce the problem. Any law shows those kind of disparities.
DeleteI've noticed a lot of the right wingers having a whinge about this most recent shooting in Canada being by a convert to Islam.
ReplyDeleteIt is worth noting here that this shooting appears to be by a crazy old white guy who hated the government, not unlike the Cliven Bundy types of today, and the 1954 shooting was by Puerto Rican separatists seeking independence, and that the '54 shooting took place during an immigration bill debate.
2 attacks in Canada this week. Both converts. At least the first, and I think also this one, had passport taken away because they seemed to be trying to leave and join ISIS. They turn around, once police aren't watching them as closely, and both attack soldiers.
DeleteSorry, doggy, this looks pretty damn different from those other shootings--and Far different from the Bundy Ranch people who DIDN'T shoot anyone, regardless of your attempts to lump them in with people who did. But go on, keep making stupid comparisons so that you can push your agenda of weakening the First Amendment so that you can jail people whose positions you dislike.
DG - I don't think it is fair to describe the sergeant at arms as a crazy old white guy for shooting the assailant the other day... oh were you talking about the Islamic terrorist instead?
Delete"and Far different from the Bundy Ranch people who DIDN'T shoot anyone"
DeleteWell, that's not exactly right. Remember what a couple of them did in Vegas?
Nobody at the Bundy Ranch standoff shot anybody. As for those two, they apparently showed up at the ranch and were sent away by the other protesters who wanted nothing to do with them.
DeleteAs further reporting turned up, they had also been Occupy movement members, so it would be just as easy to lay their crime at the foot of the progressive movement. However, both kinds of political finger-pointing are dishonest "guilt by association" tactics.
Some of the other information in subsequent reporting shows that the husband, at least, was a CI being blackmailed into working for the police. I've dealt with such people over the years--they all have a huge grudge against the cops. All indications I've seen are that this was the more likely motivation for their violence.
So, in summary, that couple likely had different motives, and even if not, they had been driven away from the Bundy Ranch protests because the people there wanted nothing to do with their radicalism. Nice try at guilt by association, but you failed again, not to mention dodged the other differences.
Well, it seems that they've identified the assault weapon used in the murder of a Canadian soldier.
ReplyDelete"Here is a clearer picture of the model of rifle used. This is a Winchester model 94, made prior to 1964, in caliber 30-30."
http://ammoland.com/2014/10/what-gun-did-the-ottawa-terrorist-use/#axzz3HMe7Msx3
Chrissy Teigen is correct? I suppose you could say that. She was at least correct that it was Wednesday.
ReplyDelete