D.C.-seized gun (courtesy wasghingtonpost.com)

The Washington Post continues its campaign to degrade and destroy Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. This time, they’ve published a disarmament dietribe [sic] by Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Colbert I. King. Mr. King uses the occasion of a drive-by shooting that nearly took-out a two-year-old at the Under the Sun salon to celebrate D.C.’s illegal gun culture — if that’s the right word. Here, you tell me . . .

It was another moment in the life of a city where shots are fired almost as frequently as clocks tick.

That’s because of guns. Have we got guns.

We have revolvers, rifles, shotguns, derringers and loads of pistols, with calibers of all kinds. Name it, we got it: 9mm, .22-caliber, .38-caliber, .40-caliber, .45-caliber, .380-caliber, .357-caliber, .32-caliber and .25-caliber. The caliber of choice, however, is 9mm.

How do I know this? Because the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) said so in its report on firearms recovered and traced in the District in 2014.

The illegal firearms in our nation’s capital have been used in assaults, drug deals, robberies, burglaries, sex crimes and, of course, homicides.

We have enough guns in the District to successfully conquer nations.

But not enough guns to defend innocent life, thanks to the District’s unconstitutional, inherently discriminatory dare I say racist permitting process.

As for the nation conquering ability of those guns, I reckon it wold require some pretty capable soldiers behind the trigger. Just as it takes some pretty heinous gangland soldiers to use guns to shoot and kill each other and the occasional innocent bystander.

The prevalence of guns is stunning.

That’s how a shooting in the street can victimize a toddler inside a hair salon with his mother by his side.

More guns equals more crime! Even if we accept this unproven foundational belief shared by gun control advocates, isn’t it equally true that less criminals equals less crime? Given that removing guns from criminals is a tricky business, shouldn’t we focus on removing criminals?

I know: I’m going way out there on that one. So WTH. Given that passing new laws to prevent criminals from obtaining guns in the first place (a.k.a., gun control) imperils Americans’ gun rights, why not use existing laws to stop criminals from obtaining guns in the first place?

I’m pleased to report that Mr. King isn’t miles away from this idea — although he fails spectacularly at the final furlong.

The shooters can’t do what they do without help. Many are aided and abetted by gun dealers who exploit legal loopholes to supply the weapons used to shoot up the Georgia Avenues in our city.

Going after unscrupulous gun sellers with a better background-check system and more federal agents, as President Obama wants to do, might help keep lethal weapons out of the hands of the lawbreakers terrorizing D.C. neighborhoods.

Anyone who supplies a firearm to a prohibited person like, say, the criminals who shot the two-year-old, is committing a crime. As we’ve pointed out before, the people giving bad guys guns aren’t “exploiting a loophole.” They’re breaking the law. Maybe we should arrest and imprison them too? Just thinking out loud . . .

While we’re at it what exactly is a “better background system,” how is it better (i.e., more effective) and how would this new system “go after” “unscrupulous gun sellers”? Not specified. Because guns.

As Mr. King closes his polemic, he ALMOST gets it. Again. He’s SO CLOSE. Like this . . .

But let’s not lose focus: The principal sources of the gun violence plaguing this city are the people pulling the triggers.

They do it by getting their dangerous hands on something most D.C. residents neither want nor need: guns.

Just ask the mother of that 2-year-old.

OK, sure. I’d like to hear her response. Now, can we ask those D.C. residents who do want or need guns — to defend themselves against those “dangerous hands” — if they, law-abiding folks that they are, can get one? Because I’m sure Mr. King supports the Second Amendment. Right?

Recommended For You

60 Responses to Washington Post: D.C. “Drowning in a Flood of Guns”

    • Oh, they certainly did identify the problem – albeit unintentionally:

      The illegal firearms in our nation’s capital have been used in assaults, drug deals, robberies, burglaries, sex crimes and, of course, homicides.

      All those violently criminal acts are committed by violent criminals.

      What WaPo doesn’t list, of course, are instances of law-abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves against those violent criminals. Primarily because only about two dozen such law-abiding citizens have been able to navigate the unconstitutional roadblocks that the District has implemented to prevent them from exercising their natural rights.

    • Exactly. Let’s dance around the issue of who the shooters are, why they cannot assimilate, who riles them up, and why they choose crime even when they get free housing, food and money.

      The truth is that they use machetes, bars, bats, knives, and fists when they cannot get guns. Some are less lethal, but there are plenty of videos on YT of blacks murdering white people with fists and shoes.

    • Not entirely. The article blames guns provided they are being used in DC. When you combine the TWO it is a problem, has been a problem, and always will be a problem.

  1. Washington Post: D.C. “Drowning in a Flood of Violent Criminals

    FTFY

    By the way:

    We have enough guns in the District to successfully conquer nations.

    Aren’t we told on a daily basis that small arms in the hands of citizens cannot deter a tyrannical government? So, how is it that the relatively few firearms in such a small place as the District could “successfully conquer nations”?

    • The Rabbi once reminded me: you can’t use logic to argue people out of position they didn’t use to logic to assume.

      • The Rabbi once reminded me: you can’t use logic to argue people out of position they didn’t use to logic to assume.

        That’s a very wise Rabbi.

        I keep trying to give antis the benefit of the doubt: that they hold a position that they formed based on emotion, rather than reason and logic – that, once presented with reason and logic, they will be willing to re-think their position. By and large, they keep making a fool of me for such optimism.

        The exchange over the past couple days with one such anti in the comments of a recent post here demonstrates that point. (Well, until JR_in_NC ended it with one of the best rhetorical woodsheddings I’ve seen in quite some time.)

  2. Well, I think DC should do something about the lawful, honest people who can’t get guns there being a the mercy of scofflaw thugs who, it seems, can and do. Just a thought. Maybe less guns for the bad guys doing bad things, and lay off the good guys who never did nothing to nobody.

    Clearly, all those DC restrictions have resulted in the wrong people being armed, and disarmed. Indeed, the article’s inventory, taken from ATF statistics, demonstrates the complete, wanton, ineffectiveness of their current approach.

    Of course, “nearly took out” a toddler (and his mother, I presume) is a more horrible demonstration of the same thing.

    DC, where a lawful persona who’s been assaulted and robbed – “Emily Gets Her Gun” – can barely get a gun after months on end, (and BTW, has shot or threatened exactly no one since), is awash in guns, kinds of guns prohibited by the various laws, guns wielded by people with records which prohibit them from having guns legally, guns wielded stupidly for doing crime. I don’t know maybe enforce the laws you have, put people in jail who think spraying a salon is OK, drive out the crime, or something.

    Where’s the outrage about bad people doing bad things?

    I’m sorry your city remains a free-fire zone. Maybe go after the people doing that, and leave the people doing nothing wrong alone. Just a thought.

  3. “The prevalence of guns is stunning.” Really? I don’t feel stunned by the non-stun guns. I’m concerned about the prevalence of criminals in D.C. (both on the streets and in the corridors of power), but what does that have to do with the guns?

    The four families in my own cul-de-sac have enough guns, not to conquer a nation or even a sleepy suburb, but maybe to hold sway over the gated community. Yet, no shots fired. Not even any weapons displayed. Curious, that.

  4. The soft bigotry of low expectations:

    “These people just can’t help it.”
    “If they do something bad, its not their fault.”
    “Someone killed a child only because someone else let them have a weapon.”

  5. Typical leftist philosophy; if something fails miserably, the answer is more. If racking up massive debt spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave doesn’t get the economy going, the answer is more spending. If gun control fails miserably to stop criminal violence, the answer is more gun control.

    • Exactly, liberals are NEVER wrong. If they do something that doesn’t work, it’s never because the idea itself was bad. No, it’s always that the implementation was wrong. It wasn’t done to a high enough degree, Republicans got in the way, other people hijacked it, etc. The best example I’ve ever seen of this was something I saw a little while ago, with a Venezuelan politician claiming that their country’s economic woes are somehow due to capitalism. Let’s see, they’re about as socialist as you can get and their economy is in ruins, and that’s somehow the fault of evil capitalism? Gotta love the left….

  6. As a resident of Arlington Virginia from 1983-2015 I can tell Mr. King that we’re also “awash in a sea of guns” without the carnage. I guess Virginia residents know how to swim.

    • Yep. If you completely replaced the population of DC with whites and gave them 10 guns each, there wouldn’t be a single shooting. (We could also get cabs and delivering pizza would be safe, but that’s a different story.)

      DC should start paying black men to marry black women and forgo children they cannot afford. Means tested welfare does not work with this population. Blacks don’t need dumped in the suburbs where they are in competition with more established groups that are suspicious of young men representin like they gangstas. They need incentivized to marry and start businesses right where they live and can do the most good.

      • Many Western nations have tried that as a way to increase their birth rate with little success.

        Better to just stop incentivizing illegitimate pregnancy thru welfare transfer payments. Only may receive ANY FAMILY assistance if the mother is married to the male who father the child. And he is working. No more mass black abortion, no more illegals employed in entry level/migrant jobs.

        • Two words: birth control. It should be made over-the-counter so there’s no problem with access or cost. People like to f*ck, this is not going to change for the foreseeable future. It’s much easier to bring yourself out of poverty if you don’t have a kid with a loaded diaper hanging off your arm plus the abortion argument becomes a non-issue.

        • It already is, you fool. There are so many pill/rubber ‘outreach’ programs, to say nothing of the abortion angle, directed at urban blacks it is ridiculous. They know how these things work and where to get them for free starting in elementary school, yet it does not matter when people have literally no reason to give a fuck –about anything. Public shelter is provided regardless, their babies will be fed junk food from the local Dollar Store on EBT regardless, they will live in crappy run-down buildings with roaches, regardless. Regardless whether they make wise decisions or foolish ones, the end result is the same for the most part; the soul-crushing bigotry of low expectations (Mr. Gerson was dead wrong; they are anything but ‘soft’)

        • “There are so many pill/rubber ‘outreach’ programs, to say nothing of the abortion angle, directed at urban blacks it is ridiculous.”

          This statement perfectly displays your ignorance. You absolutely have no fu*king idea how many of these facilities exist, how they operate with funding, and the budget constraints they have. Contraception is not provided for free, it’s provided on a sliding scale and women must have an exam for the prescription. This all cost time and money that poor women may or may not have plus they have to be educated enough about the process.

          You make it sound like there are thousands of the facilities on every street, when in reality there is maybe 1 or 2 serving a large metropolitan area. And who serves the majority of these women? Planned Parenthood, you know the place were congress wants to defund and make it even harder for poor women to get contraception. How do I know all this? Because I was married to the media director for a local Planned Parenthood, so I’ve seen first hand how difficult it can be.

          All this can be sidestepped if birth control is made over-the-counter. Economies of scale will force the price down to the cost of a bottle of aspirin. Poor women won’t have to get on a bus, travel across town, wait for hours to get an exam, and prove need to get the sliding scale pricing. Now they can just walk to the local CVS or Walgreen’s and buy them for practically nothing.

          And condoms are not birth control, they’re to prevent STDs. You don’t even know the difference. Do use all a favor and stick with what you know, because basically you don’t know jack sh*t about poor women and preventing pregnancies.

      • “If you completely replaced the population of DC with whites and gave them 10 guns each, there wouldn’t be a single shooting.”

        So all the white guys in prison for shooting people were framed? White people never commit violence?

        Race plays a role in urban violence, sure. But if you left all the other factors in place and just substituted out whites for blacks, you’d just have white thugs killing each other over drug territory and gang beefs.

  7. We have enough guns in the District to successfully conquer nations…but only the government or the gangs usually have them. Guns for the surfs? Oh no!
    They do it by getting their dangerous hands on something most D.C. residents neither want nor need: guns.
    The criminals both in and out of the government most certainly want the guns, and the poor surfs really do need the guns.

  8. Many are aided and abetted by gun dealers who exploit legal loopholes to supply the weapons used to shoot up the Georgia Avenues in our city.
    Any proof? I would say that the guns are flowing in the drug rivers feeding into D.C. and most are stolen or provided by buddies.

    • No kidding. Any dealer denying purchases to fighting-age black men based on ‘gut feelings’ would be getting picketed by Al Sharpton as we speak. I’ve never understood how straw purchases carry any liability whatsoever for the seller, frankly; their whole purpose is to deceive the seller.

  9. D.C. doesn’t have lots of violence because it has lots of guns, it has lots of guns because it has lots of violence. Otherwise, Salt Lake City, Houston, Dallas, Austin, El Paso, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Raleigh, Nashville, etc…would all be worse then Chicago and D.C. in terms of gun violence.

  10. I put my loaded gun on a table yesterday and you know what? It didn’t move nor did it shoot any one…no indiscriminate gun shoots either. Maybe it is defective? After all what I read makes it sound like the inanimate object has a mind of its own or has some inheritance ability to control a human mind to do bad things! Geez even the dogs didn’t know what to do with it so I put it back in the safe. In doing so it didn’t fight back or make a sound. Maybe I should return it for a different one?

    • The one that’s sitting on my desk next to me is doing exactly the same thing: nothing.

      Guess I need to put it away and try another one.

  11. “The illegal firearms in our nation’s capital have been used in assaults, drug deals, robberies”

    As he stated, the firearms used in the mentioned crimes are already illegal. So let’s lets punish the law abiding?

  12. This story reminds me of a very old adage:

    You can lead a leftist to the facts but you can’t make him think.

  13. That’s because of guns. Have we got guns.

    Sorry, numbnuts, but its about thugs. Have you got thugs. And you will always have thugs until you acknowledge that they exist.

    What the hell is it with Demoncrats? In their little universe, there are no Islamic terrorists, no gang thugs, no bums sucking the welfare teat dry. There are just inanimate objects running through the streets and evil Republicans.

    And BTW, Mr. King, awards don’t mean much in a world where Barack Obama can win a Nobel prize for being black.

    • Nobel burn. All the more so if Trump ends up nominated (then he’ll be EXACTLY like white-peoples’ Obama)

      “In their little universe, there are no Islamic terrorists, no gang thugs, no bums sucking the welfare teat dry”
      Just potential Democrat voters, waiting to be given the proper bribe that will make them fall in line. All the good intentions driving the policies are merely the means to that bribe, which is why they never have to amount to anything; these fools are already voting Democrat by the time the AWB is shown to be useless, the till has no money left, and thugs running rampant in the street.

  14. More criminals equals more crime.

    It isn’t the prevalence of tools that make crime…it is the prevalence of criminals.

    And those criminals are emboldened because they know their chances of confrontation is diminished as the number of armed citizens is diminished. The cost/benefit analysis for criminals is pretty clear.

  15. As a 3 year resident of D.C. and former Naval Special Warfare Operator with recent experience (think OEF), if the city wanted to fix the problem they would allow competent individuals like myself conceal carry, but alas, as I submitted my application late last year, it is only replied with, after 90 days, I am unqualified on ALL accounts of the determining factors required to possess a concealed carry permit in the District of Crime. Kudos to you, how many more innocents will have to be killed or wounded before they realize doing nothing or even worse, deterring my constitutional rights, is not solving any problems.

    • “I am unqualified on ALL accounts of the determining factors required to possess a concealed carry permit in the District of Crime.”

      What are these “determining factors” of which you speak? Have they published a list, or inventory your DQs on your rejection?

      • The three requirements:

        “Meet the basic eligibility requirements for registering a firearm or obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol.” (And I currently have a Florida CCW)

        “Meet the standards of suitability required to obtain a concealed carry license” (training on gun safety, marksmanship…think I got that covered, thanks US navy)

        “Demonstrate a good reason to fear injury to person or property, or other proper reason for a concealed carry license” (which is unconstitutional to require, but the 1st degree entry and burglary of my home in September 2014, you think would qualify.)

        It goes on to state: “Specifically, the applicant did not meet the minimum requirement of showing: the basic eligibility requirements for registering a firearm or obtaining a license to carry a pistol”

        You’re government hard at work!

    • So why do you live in DC when you could live in Arlington an actually be closer to DC’s good stuff than the nice neighborhoods in the city? Besides Northern Virginia is the center of the Metroplex now. With the exception of the Federally provided attractions there is more to do in NOVA than DC.

      • Because then I would have to live in Arlington with all the idiot 20-somethings, Ha! Requirements of my job dictate I be in the district. And besides, my constitutional rights should not vary depending on where I live within the U.S.

        • Actual trumps theorectical.

          20 somethings can’t afford to live in Arlington. There are probably more running around the district.

      • It’s true that there are a lot of nice attractions in Arlington, especially the ones that wear sundresses and miniskirts all summer.

  16. If the Liberals/Progressives succeed in taking away firearms or radically reducing their numbers, I wonder what their explanation of evil will be therafter?

    The Liberal/Progressive mindset excludes evil from its equation – bad guys are just misunderstood and need more therapy (their real bad guys are the ones who disagree with them). The problem is that evil (i) exists, and (ii) will continue to exist even in the post-gun utopia of their dreams. How will they (do they) explain machete violence and etc.?

  17. But let’s not lose focus: The principal sources of the gun violence plaguing this city are the people pulling the triggers.

    They do it by getting their dangerous hands on something most D.C. residents neither want nor need: guns.

    Incredible. It’s as if his mind were a deer that stepped halfway out into a clearing, then suddenly caught the scent of a fact on the wind and panicked.

  18. Drowning in a sea of criminals. Take away the guns, and DC will still be drowning in a sea of criminals and the people with the guns will still have them for protection but live outside DC. That’s been the trend for the past 100 years anyway.

  19. PS. There are 3 or 4 times the guns per capita in Virginia but Virginia by contrast is NOT drowning. How about an editorial “While DC is drowning in a sea of guns Virginians in a similar sea have no problem with it.”

  20. What if – and I know this will sound crazy – but what if the people who had the guns decided to, you know, follow the law and not be felons? Would that work too?

    Because it seems to work in a lot of places that aren’t Washington D.C. There are millions of gun-owning non-felons in the US. Why do the criminals get all of the press?

    Of course we know why. It’s because that’s The Narrative the press wants people to believe.

  21. I am failing to see how the inability/unwillingness of The District of Columbia to deal with savages that dwell there means my rights need to be infringed. It’s like demanding your neighbor come over and clean it up when your dog craps on the rug.

  22. DC has a lot of violence.
    Northern Virginia, a short walk over one of several bridges, has much less.

    Pro Tip: It’s not the guns, it’s the people.

  23. I work in DC and hear gunfire all the time. Then 20 cops roll in after the fact. The residents hate each other. Gun laws or not they will kill one another

  24. Leaving DC out for the moment, consider this: Prince George’s County has almost 900K residents. It’s in Maryland, which has very strict (read: unobtainable) concealed carry permits (you basically need to be a body guard or be in the diamond business), an “assault weapons ban,” restrictions on magazine capacity, restrictions on ammunition sales and possession to minors. In 2015, they had 119 murders. Fairfax County, Virginia, with just over 1.3 million residents, has 12 murders in 2015. It’s in Virginia, which has “shall issue” concealed carry permits, legal open carry (no permit required — been the law in Virginia for ever), no “one gun a month” purchase restrictions, no “assault weapons” ban, etc. With a large population of ex-military, Federal and local law enforcement, thousands of hunters, and others who just have guns, FFX is “awash in guns.” Just go to any gun range any weekend in FFX and see for yourself . What we’re not is awash in murderers. And in between these two jurisdictions sits DC, which had a big spike in murders, although it’s down from the historic highs of the 1990’s. Availability/prevalence of guns has nothing to do with how people use them.

Leave a Reply

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