Washington DC, where it is illegal for law abiding citizens to own or possess a firearm, is well on its way to being the 2004 Murder capital of the US.

here is one linksafestreetsdc

It must please the anti-gunners greatly to know that the only people who are abiding by this gun ban are the law abiding.
But what about the criminals? Why have they not complied with this ban? How do they feel about the removal of the DC gun ban. Lets go to our on the Street reporter IMA FAIRTARGET.

IMA: Im currently talking with an individual that will only give his name as "Joe". Joe how do you feel about the proposed legislature to remove the DC Ban??

Joe: Well Ima, Im worried. I mean up to this point I have led a pretty safe criminal life. I mean unless they are a cop, I dont have to worry about anything. I can pull out my pistol and say "give me your money or your dead" and there will be no repercussions to me, even if I kill them. But if Congress overturns this ban, that means I could risk getting shot or maimed. It really has me worried. I mean how am I supposed to make a living if the law abiding are allowed to carry or own firearms?

Ima: Well Joe have you looked at any other line of work or place of work?

Joe: Well I did look into moving to San Fransisco California. They are trying to do there what they did here. Ban em all. I really would like to thank San Fransisco Supervisors Chris Daly, Michela Alioto-Pier, Tom Ammiano, Bevan Dufty, and Matt Gonzalez as well as Senator Feinstein and Sarah Brady for worrying about my welfare and well being, and for them trying to keep me out of the unemployment line.

IMA: Well that is the word on the street, take back to the studio

Joe: Ima how much money you got on you.

Ima: ohh not much

Joe: Give me your money or I'll kill you!!

who is selling the guns to the criminals?

Well, anyone that does that automatically is breaking the law. Therefore, the answer to your question is "other criminals".

I have a buddy who is now a SSgt in the Marine Corps. Prior to joining he had been in a gang in Los Angeles. He used to tell me what it was like, and he told me a few stories on how much this or that type of gun sold for on the black market. He told me that pistols used to sell like hotcakes. Concealable, and easy to use, usually stolen or bought using a straw purchaser, someone that had a clean record. He wised up though and realized where his life was headed and escaped it.

A criminal does not care about how many laws they break or who they hurt.

Do ya think IMA FAIRTARGET got this "Letter From Sarah Brady"? Will he be going?

He may have. He is the posterboy for the anti-gun agenda, as well as his cousins
Rob Meim Unarmed and Canna Copgethe refastenough - Topreventarape (She just married into the Topreventarape family, her husbands name is Icarry Agun Topreventarape).

The VPC doesnt like Canna's husband or his sister Iown Apump Actionshotgun, due to their danger to society. The VPC doesn't realize that ICar and Iown both are upstanding citizens, that they have never been in any trouble with the law and are active in community service.

Their history of gun ownership dates back to the old country when their GrandFather Ican Shootwellanough Topreventarape watched the Nazi's disarm the populace. He Immigrated to the United States in 1939, and served in the US Army that went and crushed the Nazis, he saw what happens to an unarmed populace at places like Buchenwald and was able to view the horrors of Aushwitz. He understood that an Unarmed populace is easily controled by corrupt governments and by any criminal elements.

Upon his return after the war he meet and married Cantwe Alljustgetalong and had twins, a son and a daughter. The son they named Shoo tstraight (he was named after a famous Chinese Resistance fighter from WW2) and the daughter was named Calla Cop.
Shoo grew up and had two sons mentioned previously ICarry and Iown.
Calla though was murdered at the age of 21. She had gone out with some friends who asked her to leave the pistol she carried in her purse at home, they didnt want to offend anyone. They went to a party and became separated. Calla was walking home when she was raped and murdered. They later caught her murderer, his name was Ilikan Unarmedpopulace. Ilikan was sentenced to death and rode "Old Sparky".

well back to present times Canna just found out she is pregnant, if it is a boy they will name him after his dad, if it is a girl they will name her Iwill Shootya.

Ohh yea did you know the Reporter Ima's middle name is Defenseless

You know, it's logic like this that led to the arms race.

*Shakes head*

Well Canada is having problems with their "gun laws" too Are they not? Hasn't the gun Registration program run way over budget and not had all of the guns registered? If Im wrong let me know, Im not an expert on Canada but I did stay at a holiday inn express

Yes, Canada is having huge problems with the registration program.

Even more disturbing is the rise in gun violence in Toronto, mostly committed with guns brought in from the US, whose possession and purchase laws are much more relaxed that ours.

The key difference here, is that gun crimes are punished to a much stronger degree than in the US.

Note however, that most of the violence is gang on gang related.

Well I do advocate harsher punishment for those that use guns during a crime, so maybe there is room for discussion. It just seemed to me that you were mocking my post. Sorry bout that.

but one issue that is the cause of this post is the fact that Criminals dont legally buy guns, and criminals dont give a flying rats butt about laws concerning gun control

Not mocking your post, simply making a comparison to the logic that "If they get bigger/more guns, we have to get bigger/more guns". Proliferation is NOT the answer IMO.

There is plenty of room for discussion. I don't want to take away anybody's right to own a gun, I never will, but that is MY choice, as it is your choice to own one.

However, statistics show that most violent crime is committed by illegally obtained guns (read stolen) that were sold on the black market. The solution is manyfold:

1) Reduce the absolute number of guns out on the street. If you truly want a gun for protection, fine, but do you really need 10?

2) Require LOCKED gun cabinets and for guns to be STORED in those locked cabinets. Again, an exception can be made for ONE hand gun for home protection if you want. This should reduce gun theft.

3) Penalize gun crimes in a much more extreme manner than non-gun crimes. For example, if you even CARRY a gun in the commission of a felony, your right to carry a gun will FOREVER by banned, and your sentence will have 20 years added on (NO EXCEPTIONS)

And, BTW - I am an American citizen, living in Canada because my job took me there.

I am not saying start a bigger better guns race. But dont you think that if the populace of DC was allowed to own firearms (even if none of them exercised that right) it might give criminals pause?

I agree on a lot of what you are saying, but for example I own around 16 rifles. They are part of a collection from all the major countries of WW2. I keep them in a locked gun rack when they are not in use. If someone steals one of these they have just committed a Federal Felony that will get the ATF involved. But criminals probably wouldnt want my guns as they are not easily concealed or easy to use without experience.

I agree about the stiffer penalty. But the part about permanently losing your right to own a gun is already the case for one, and 2 if someone is committing a crime with a firearm they probably dont care about their right to ever legally own a firearm.

On another note how is the weather up there, must be cold as heck

Your logic in your first paragraph is the same that leads to the "concealed carry" law. I have always been against those, because if someone is carrying, I want to KNOW. Of course, that sort of takes the chance occurrence out of it for the criminal.

I don't really agree with this logic, because as you yourself has said, many criminals don't really care about what happens. Another problem with the logic is this case. Suppose the mugger or rapist does NOT have a gun and is able to get the firearm away from the intended victim? I really can't say how likely this is, but it is a potential problem with "armed victims".

On point two: you are probably right, that is not a huge disincentive. The stiffer penalty however may be.

And cold is a relative term. It's only -8 with a -12 Wind Chill, pretty balmy for Jan 14th...

Why do you need to know? Would it make you feel better? The person standing behind you in line at walmart could be carrying one, but unless there is a threat to himself or another person, no one should know. And if he or she makes it known that they are carrying or brandish the weapon without a good reason, that license can or will be revoked. So just because they have a weapon does not mean they are about to start shooting.


I aways see this argument used, the "well what if they take it away from you" argument. If they take the gun away from me they would have to beat me to death with it because it will be empty. Plus the fact that if I missed that many times, I do not deserve to have said permit/license.
If the mugger or rapist does not have a gun and instead had a knife, well everyones heard the saying you dont bring a knife to a gunfight. There would be one less criminal on the streets.
The problem is not that the criminal might disarm the "armed victim", the problem IS the fact that that criminal is not in jail. Why is this criminal not in jail? Because we let criminals plea bargain to lesser charges instead of punishing them for all the crimes they committed. But I'm not a lawyer so Im not an expert on why this is so.

Also here are the Maryland laws concerning deadly force and when it is justified. Why are washington DC residents not allowed these same rights as the rest of the state??

here is a link to a pdf document citing case files and examples
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~keving/Self%20Def%20Ins.pdf

Self-Defense (MPJI-Cr 5:07)
Self-defense is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
1) The defendant actually believed that <he> <she> was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend <himself> <herself> in light of the threatenend or actual harm.

<Deadly-force is that amount of force reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm. If the defendant is found to have used deadly-force, it must be decided whether the use of deadly-force was reasonable. Deadly-force is reasonable if the defendant actually had a reasonable belief that the aggressor's force was or would be deadly and that the defendant needed a deadly-force response.>

<In addition, before using deadly-force, the defendant is required to make all reasonable effort to retreat. The defendant does not have to retreat if the defendant was in <his> <her> home, retreat was unsafe, the avenue of retreat was unknown to the defendant, the defendant was being robbed, the defendant was lawfully arresting the victim. If the defendant was found to have not used deadly-force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat.>


Defense of Others (MPJO-Cr 5:01)
Defense of others is a defense, and the defendent must be found not guilty if all of the following four factors are present:
1) The defendant actually believed that the person defended was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend the person defended in light of the threatened or actual force.
4) The defendant's purpose in using force was to aid the person defended.


Defense of Habitation - Deadly Force (MPJI-Cr 5:02)
Defense of one's home is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was committing <was just about to commit> the crime of (crime) in <at> the defendant's home.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the conduct of (victim).


Defense of Property - Nondeadly Force (MPJI-Cr 5:02.1)
Defense of property is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was unlawfuly interfering <was just about to unlawfully interfere> with property.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the victim's interference with the property. <A person may not use deadly force to defend <his> <her> property. Deadly force is that amount of force reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm.>