Hey, Washington D.C., how's that gun control working out for ya?!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A recent spate of armed robberies has brought to light the inability of Washington, D.C. residents to carry concealed weapons. So far in 2012 there have been twice as many robberies at gunpoint than at this time last year. The sharp rise in brazen criminal activity has brought on the usual round of increased police officers and patrols in the areas hit hard by the crime wave. Whether this strategy works to bring a halt to the robberies remains to be seen over the next few weeks.
One strategy that has been proven to work, allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons, does not appear to be in the cards in the nation's capital. The District is notorious for its unwillingness to give its residents the ability to protect themselves. It took the monumental United States Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller for residents to have even a modicum of protection under the Second Amendment. However, the citizens of D.C. are still banned from carrying outside the home and concealed carry is prohibited. The District joins only Illinois in the distinction of being a "No-issue" concealed carry jurisdiction. It is clear, however, that the criminals in Washington, D.C. are paying little attention to its gun laws.
There is an old saying that "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." The increased police patrols in D.C. will have a hard time being in the exact right place at the exact right time to put a stop to any type of robbery. Advertising the increased police activity may help, but there is one advertisement that always works: letting criminals know that their intended victim could be armed. Criminals are relatively street smart, and when word gets out that citizens have the right to carry concealed weapons they are much more careful about simply walking up to someone and trying to rob them.
Of course the cries will come that there will be "blood in the streets". Arming more citizens, the argument goes, will only lead to more violence. However, the statistics, as mentioned above, simply do not bear this out. One study has shown that over 75% of the time firearms are used defensively they are never fired. The mere presence of a defensive weapon is enough to deter the criminal. While there could be an argument made that some individuals may overreact and fire their weapons when self-defense is not appropriate, this is an extremely rare occurrence. The counter argument of course is that a person would rather be judged by twelve than carried out by six.
So what will lead to fewer robberies in our nation's capital? More police or citizens better able to protect themselves at the point of attack? One has been tried many times, with mixed results. The other has lead to a real decrease in crime everywhere it has been implemented. Let's hope the powers that be in D.C. make the right decision.</div></div>
Source – Examiner
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A recent spate of armed robberies has brought to light the inability of Washington, D.C. residents to carry concealed weapons. So far in 2012 there have been twice as many robberies at gunpoint than at this time last year. The sharp rise in brazen criminal activity has brought on the usual round of increased police officers and patrols in the areas hit hard by the crime wave. Whether this strategy works to bring a halt to the robberies remains to be seen over the next few weeks.
One strategy that has been proven to work, allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons, does not appear to be in the cards in the nation's capital. The District is notorious for its unwillingness to give its residents the ability to protect themselves. It took the monumental United States Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller for residents to have even a modicum of protection under the Second Amendment. However, the citizens of D.C. are still banned from carrying outside the home and concealed carry is prohibited. The District joins only Illinois in the distinction of being a "No-issue" concealed carry jurisdiction. It is clear, however, that the criminals in Washington, D.C. are paying little attention to its gun laws.
There is an old saying that "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." The increased police patrols in D.C. will have a hard time being in the exact right place at the exact right time to put a stop to any type of robbery. Advertising the increased police activity may help, but there is one advertisement that always works: letting criminals know that their intended victim could be armed. Criminals are relatively street smart, and when word gets out that citizens have the right to carry concealed weapons they are much more careful about simply walking up to someone and trying to rob them.
Of course the cries will come that there will be "blood in the streets". Arming more citizens, the argument goes, will only lead to more violence. However, the statistics, as mentioned above, simply do not bear this out. One study has shown that over 75% of the time firearms are used defensively they are never fired. The mere presence of a defensive weapon is enough to deter the criminal. While there could be an argument made that some individuals may overreact and fire their weapons when self-defense is not appropriate, this is an extremely rare occurrence. The counter argument of course is that a person would rather be judged by twelve than carried out by six.
So what will lead to fewer robberies in our nation's capital? More police or citizens better able to protect themselves at the point of attack? One has been tried many times, with mixed results. The other has lead to a real decrease in crime everywhere it has been implemented. Let's hope the powers that be in D.C. make the right decision.</div></div>
Source – Examiner
