Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Bullets Ain't Got No Eyes

The Washigton Post reports on the latest fatal shootings to take place in the North East sector.

Two people were killed and two others wounded in shootings over the weekend in Northeast Washington. In one incident, a 16-year-old boy was shot in the head, according to D.C. police and neighbors.

The violence, in the 6th Police District, began at 9:27 p.m. Saturday, when officers were called to the 5000 block of Just Street NE for a shooting and found Antonio Ward, 16, of the District lying dead.

A witness to the shooting, Bennie Bellinger, 76, was watching TV when she heard what sounded like gunfire just outside her home. Bullets had actually pierced her front window. Her car windows were shattered, too.

"Good thing wasn't nobody sitting there," she said. "Bullets ain't got no eyes."

In another case, Jason Liser, 32, of Bowie was found with multiple gunshot wounds. He was taken to a hospital, where he died. There were no witnesses and no suspects in this killing.

My question is, where do you think those guns came from? Do you think they originated in the District of Columbia? Or do you think it more likely they were imported from Virginia or Georgia or Louisiana or Mississippi? The pro-gun crowd keeps trying to say that violence like this proves the local gun control laws don't work. I say it's just the opposite. If those guns came from neighboring states with easier access to guns, then these incidents prove that gun control laws do work. The obvious solution, albeit a partial one, would be to regularize those laws to apply everywhere. I guess we could call this gun control harmony, what do you think?

Please leave a comment.


  1. If it is easy access to guns that causes the violence, why isn't the violence more prevalent where guns are easier to get?

    Maybe it isn't overall availability, but a disparity-you have violence when the criminals can get them, but the good guys can't (or don't...)

    Or maybe it is something else. If DC were to adopt (or forced to adopt) Virginia's gun laws, I would expect only a slight reduction in crime--Most of the crime is criminal on criminal.

  2. INCONCEIVABLE! No one can carry guns in DC!

    It's almost as if strict gun control isn't working....

  3. When asked, Americans are less and less likely in favor of more gun control (see CNN's report, "Poll: Fewer Americans support stricter gun control laws" from their own polls).

    So with nearly one gun per person in America (or more depending on whose quote you believe), HOW do you propose to go against the American will and make those guns disappear in such a way that bad people can't get them any more? Your proposal is like a true communism: wonderful in concept, yet will never be able to work.

    Look at Mexico with its strict laws, and extremely high gun violence rate. Ban guns somewhere, and guess what? If it's economically viable, they'll still get here. Look up Khyber Pass in Afghanistan/Pakistan where they make AK47s (and other weapons) with hand tools!

    Improvements in gun violence will take a combination of a fundamental change in attitudes on guns (i.e. stop idolizing them and take away their mystique), violence (stop making it the societal acceptable way of resolving minor conflict), and ruthless enforcement of laws which are ALREADY in place (e.g. if you plan a crime and plan the use of a gun with it, no little slap on the wrist, make the punishment harsh, and let it be known that it will not be tolerated!).

  4. man ... you crack me up.

    The fact that violence continues in D.C. is proof that strict gun control works? Because the guns come from elsewhere?

    it simply proves that when criminals want something, they'll get it. Just like drugs ... can't grow them in the US, get them elsewhere.

    So if you ban guns in DC and they get them elsewhere, what do you think will happen if you ban guns nationwide? Any chance they might get them outside the US? You know ... like all those gun markets overseas? many in countries that already have a well developed smuggling system to bring drugs here already in place.

  5. Something to consider MikeB...

    You can not significantly affect a "supply and demand" situation by focusing on the supply side.

    Read it again and let it soak in nice and deep.

    If there is a demand for something, be it weapons, drugs or underage prostitutes; someone WILL bring the supply for consumption.

    Greed is a powerful motivator.

    But...if there is not a demand for something, then all the supply in the world won't mean squat because noone's buying. No profit, no incentive, pretty soon supply is gone on it's own.

    We just watched this all play out with the U.S. automakers.

    Americans have been buying foriegn cars in abundance for decades now for a myriad of reasons. Do you think that The Big 3, when faced with this reality should have kicked into high gear and increased production of U.S. cars nobody wanted?

    Of course not. Why increase the supply if nobody is buying.

    What the Big 3(with Obama's help) need to do was increase the DEMAND for U.S. cars and trucks in order to move product.

    Hence the "Cash for Clunkers" program.

    The sad fact is that we have young folks(gang-bangers) who don't think twice about killing another person in order to steal their tennis shoes or all to often, simple bragging rights.

    All the gun control the BC dreams of won't mean squat as long as we have a percentage of our youth who places the value of human life somewhere south of footwear.

    That's the root problem and deep down, I think you know it.

  6. You guys may be right about the supply and demand stuff. Certainly drugs are a good example to prove your point.

    But, what about the machine gun story? Isn't that a case of diminishing the supply as well as the demand through all those regulations and restrictions?

  7. "But, what about the machine gun story? Isn't that a case of diminishing the supply as well as the demand through all those regulations and restrictions?"

    Valid point, kinda.

    As supply goes down and demand stays steady, the price goes up. The demand didn't decrease.

    The result is that only the wealthy have reasonable access to these full-auto weapons.

    The result is that I can pick up a semi-auto AR-15 for under $1000 yet can't touch a full-auto M-16for less than $15,000, not even considering the $200 tax stamp required to own one.

    On a side note, as I'm sure you are aware, that was what US v Miller was all about; the tax stamp. Miller didn't rule that the 2A was a collective vs an individual right, it was all about government taxes.

    Governments, drug cartels and Hollywood celebs have all the machine guns they want. The average Joe, eh, not so much.

    But didn't you get the Brady memo that semi-auto guns are actually more dangerous than full-auto weapons because they are easier to control and stay on target?

  8. I did get that Brady memo, or was it that message I got from the Crips and the Bloods. They said who needs machine guns when we can gets all the semi-autos we wants.

  9. "I did get that Brady memo, or was it that message I got from the Crips and the Bloods."

    I do remember that you no longer live in the states, but the bloods and crips are rapidly being overtaken by much more violent gangs.

    The town I was born in saw its first MS-13 graffitti show up less than 2 months ago.

    I am not pleased.

    On a side note, their preferred weapon is the machete.

    In addition, while MS-13 does deal drugs, their main source of revenue is in human smuggling and selling guns to rival gangs so they can kill themselves off.

    All neat and tidy from the proper vantage point.