D.C. has whopping 25% drop in murders after handgun band lifted.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why does the left feel the need to make policy for everyone, if YOU don't like guns don't buy one....

Well duh... Thanks for that piece of genius, we are all the better for it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The article mentioned many cities have seen a drop however, when compared to similar sized cites, D.C. dropped much more than those.

At very minimum it demonstrated that removing the ban has not caused more death and it seems it would be hard to argue it did not cause less.

No, it wouldn't be hard to argue. How about one had little or perhaps nothing to do with the other? If you want to make the argument that lifting the ban on handguns has driven down the murder rate, then explain to me how the murder rate was reduced by the same - actually a slightly higher - margin w/o any such action elsewhere? Maybe it's due to law enforcement having beefed up and shifted strategies resulting in more effective crime prevention.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gun crime goes up and down in the UK too, irrespective of the fact that most people do not own or carry guns.

Lott wants to identify a straight cause and effect relationship - it's just not there.

That's not to say that what he is saying is untrue, just rather exaggerated.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Gene Hunt

[Danno 1,228]

Gun crime goes up and down in the UK too, irrespective of the fact that most people do not own or carry guns.

Lott wants to identify a straight cause and effect relationship - it's just not there.

That's not to say that what he is saying is untrue, just rather exaggerated.

Now let's suppose the rate increased by 25%

your conclusion would be?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Now let's suppose the rate increased by 25%

your conclusion would be?

Was my post not sufficiently clear for you that you need to ask additional queries?

Edited March 2, 2010 by Gene Hunt

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now let's suppose the rate increased by 25%

your conclusion would be?

That conclusion would equally depend on a number of factors.

[Danno 1,228]

If you want to make the argument that lifting the ban on handguns has driven down the murder rate, then explain to me how the murder rate was reduced by the same - actually a slightly higher - margin w/o any such action elsewhere?

You make a good point... and if true very valid, now lets go beyond hypothetical and tell me which similar sized city had an even lower drop?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You make a good point... and if true very valid, now lets go beyond hypothetical and tell me which similar sized city had an even lower drop?

DC has 600K population. Tampa, FL has 400K. DC Metro is about 4MM, Tampa Bay is about 3MM. Not that far apart. And our rate has dropped 26% w/o any change in handgun laws. Other metro areas across the country have seen their murder rates go down to levels not seen in decades w/o any changes in their respective handgun laws. It's a trend that I would attribute to better law enforcement strategies rather than on the lift on a handgun ban that hasn't occured but in one of the metro areas.

Interesting read on what, aside from the handgun ban lift, was done in D.C. to combat violent crime. That's a stpry similar to what you'll find for other metro areas around the nation producing similar results. I find this much more convincing than the theory put forth by the article you posted.

[The_Dude 1,142]

and it also plays into that little thing called "The right of self defense".

How can one really have that right ...if the Gov't takes away the "means"...... to defend your self.

The more you post things like that danno, the more you adduce my belief that you live in a compound with your arsenal, paranoid that the government is out to get you. You need a bit of context to your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The more you post things like that danno, the more you adduce my belief that you live in a compound with your arsenal, paranoid that the government is out to get you.

In Danno's defense: Just because he's paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get him.

[Danno 1,228]

The more you post things like that danno, the more you adduce my belief that you live in a compound with your arsenal, paranoid that the government is out to get you. You need a bit of context to your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

That bit of deep thinking (or lack of) told us more about you than me.

Who would I be paranoid of and why?

Why is it the hard left is so obsessed with paranoia?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why is Rob "hard left".

Seriously, this is kinda silly.

[Peikko 1,575]

Why do people believe a gun is the best defence against the evils of government? That makes no sense at all. With very little imagination, anyone could be made out to be a domestic terrorist if they try to use arms to enforce governmental change, I don't fancy their chances at success. Far better to continue to exercise your voting rights and HOLD POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE. That works, really.

Political complacency is dangerous.

Mind you, I'd really, really like to see a non adversarial political system introduced. For the most part government needs to be pragmatic, not ideological.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[The_Dude 1,142]

That bit of deep thinking (or lack of) told us more about you than me.

Who would I be paranoid of and why?

Why is it the hard left is so obsessed with paranoia?

Danno, you're clearly paranoid that the government is going to infringe upon some liberty that you think you have, whether it is real or contrived. You don't seem to have any sense of context when it comes to this debate. I suppose thats your prerogative to keep the blinders on, but don't try to argue under some pretext that you have an objective point of view.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If Danno, doesn't vote, as he has suggested, then perhaps the gun is the only political "tool" he has left.

There might be a certain internal logic there even though it patently makes no sense.