D.C.’s Lobbyists Armed and Dangerous

The Washington Post is running  a story about responsible residents exercising their Second Amendment right to defend themselves and their families with a handgun in the post-Heller era. I know; I’m as shocked as you are. The Post tries to disenfranchise the real story (responsible gun owners acting responsibly) by noting that the guns are mainly registered in DC’s “safest, most well to do neighborhoods.” So the paper that argued for the most stringent possible gun regulations is surprised and semi-indignant that only wealthy Washingtonian have managed to jump through the hoops needed to obtain a legal handgun. And just in case we think this is a good news story . . .

The WaPo trots out Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to predict human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria

Another thing that happens, statistically, is we see increases in domestic violence and suicides tied to the number of guns people have around.

I’d like to point Paul to the DC Metro PD’s crime statistics website that shows both homicides and aggravated assaults dropped the year following the Heller decision—despite gun grabbers thinking this change would lead to Rambo level body counts.

Finally, what’s with the “GQ” shot of the guy practicing Suarez trigger control? Surely a paper as concerned with gun safety would know better than the promulgate piss-poor pistol control.

comments

  1. avatar Javier E says:

    Another thing that happens, statistically, is we see increases in domestic violence and suicides tied to the number of guns people have around.

    So is this to say that people who have more than one weapon at their disposal are going to commit suicide more than once?
    How about knives? Spoons? Forks?
    As for the money issue. Guns aint cheap neither are the permits. Lets not get into the cost of ammo.

  2. avatar Javier E says:

    P.S. I read the tag on the photo. SLAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! loaded in a gun safe. Finger on the trigger?

    1. avatar Patrick Carrube says:

      Loaded in a gun safe? Yes, how else are you supposed to keep your “go to gun”? Unloaded in a sock drawer?

      1. avatar Javier E says:

        mag out. And not near wool it makes me itch. More on the finger than the safe, brain to finger typing ooooooooops.

  3. avatar TTACer says:

    only wealthy Washingtonian have managed to jump through the hoops needed to obtain a legal handgun.

    Don’t forget the cost. I don’t know how much the training and paperwork is, but the one and only FFL in DC charges $150 per transfer, that is 10x what my ffl charges.

  4. avatar TTACer says:

    Another thing that happens, statistically, is we see increases in domestic violence and suicides tied to the number of guns people have around.

    I like the part where the reporter asked him for a citation for that “statistic” oh, wait.

  5. avatar Eric S says:

    My lady was anti-gun when I met her… she’s still not very pro, but she’s not anti, and she wants her own now.

    The one thing she is concerned with is rich vs poor issues. I framed the gun control debate in those terms and that was one of the things that started bringing her over. This article really sums it up though as far as making gun inaccessible to the lower socioeconomic status folks. Only the wealthier people are allowed to be armed with most strict gun control measures.

  6. avatar Mike Ebel says:

    I seem to recall that Poll Taxes were deemed unconstitutional. So D.C. doesn’t have a gun shop to buy a pistol so $150 transfer + $60 for registrations + $150 for training and the cost of taking a day off work to attend the class. Add that on top of the cost of the firearm itself and it sounds like only the well off people can afford a firearm in D.C. I would be curious how this scheme to deter firearm ownership can pass constitutional muster. Let alone they also ruled you don’t have to pass a test or take a class to vote. I would recommend that the people of D.C. vote out the whole lot of politicians that think they know best and can’t even trust their own electorate to be armed for self protection.

  7. avatar HerbM says:

    Gun control is inherently AND historically racist, sexist, ageist, unfair to the elderly and those with physical issues.

    Charging for permits to exercise a ‘right’ just compounds the injustice.

    Where is gun control the most strict? Precisely in crime areas where the vast majority of people are LAW-ABIDING, HONEST, and members of RACIAL MINORITIES.

    Just giving the violent criminals additional advantages.

    The WaPost should be ashamed to go to print or web.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email