Previous Post
Next Post

“Well, first of all, I’ve never even seen the guns that (my) security people have. When I travel outside the city, I don’t have security. I would be fine without security. But we have 3,800 police officers to protect people. They may not be at someone’s side at every moment, but they’re around.” – Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray

Previous Post
Next Post


      • I’m glad I’m not the only one old enough to know who Ming was. And yes, he does have a resemblence.

      • He’s an “iteration” of Ming the Merciless, whom I used to have nightmares about as a kid. Those Flash Gordon shows were the height of early 1950’s kid’s TV Show action, adventure and terror. Never missed an episode if I could help it.

  1. “They may not be at someone’s side at every moment, but they’re around.”

    I’m sure that’s comforting to the raped or murdered victims and their families…
    My view is thus: If someone cannot protect an individual 24/7, that person has no right to deny the individual the right to self-protection.

  2. :”Touche’!”,
    John Doe!… I personally, “Don’t Dial, 911!”… You’d be in alot of trouble, Waiting, for our “Over – Worked”, P.D.’s, to arrive! “God Helps Them, who “Help”, Themselves!…. [With “Springfield”, as my Guardian Angel!…].

  3. Why take only this one quote from what is actually a pretty good article filled with pro gun and pro self defense commentary?

    “How do we reduce gun crime and Aurora-style mass shootings when Americans already own nearly 300 million firearms? Maybe by allowing more people to carry them.” – the tagline for the same article

    • Because this one qoute pretty much tells us what the people of D.C. are up against when they want to exercise thier rights.

      • Yeah. How can a person who requires a security detail to follow him around in his own city get off telling everyone else that his city is safe?

  4. “But we have 3,800 police officers to protect people. They may not be at someone’s side at every moment, but they’re around.” – Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray

    Comments like this never cease to amaze me. The mayor is implying that police “protection” is quite fine. Can someone please explain how the millions of violent crimes happen every year in this country with such fine police “protection”?

  5. That article was an interesting read. When I read it, I pictured a person that was not naturally disposed to support gun ownership go thru the process of thinking the whole issue thru (something many folks do not honestly do). You could kind of see him turning it over in his head and coming slowly and grudgingly to support law abiding people owning and carrying guns.

    • IMHO, the post does not do the article justice. Everyone is jumping all over the snippet from the article but it would be worth everyone’s time to read the article. The article does have some errors for example, we have more than just 8 million registered gun owners in the USA. But, he makes valid points and the article represents a more normalized view and more of acceptance of guns in society and even acknowledges that “gun free zones” are useless and gives specific example of stupid laws or policies.

      It is a very good read.

      • Pascal: You’re correct that the quote does not do the whole article justice, and I recommend people read the whole thing, because it’s pretty good.

        However, it does do justice to the subject of the quote, Washington D.C Mayor Vincent Gray. It is not taken out of context, nor does it indicate feelings that are not his own. It was included in the article as an example of how “the other side” thinks.

  6. Would somebody please remind me why I should care more about the gun rights of the citizens of D.C. than they do themselves? The people of D.C. vote these clowns in year after year. Why the fvck should I care? Let D.C. drown in it’s own cesspool.

    • Dude, this is the place that has spent its entire existence fighting for voting representation, then when it’s on the cusp of finally gaining a seat in the House torpedoing that chance because of the gun control lobby. Guess who lead that charge? Our man Vincent Gray here.

      So after throwing voting rights under the bus to pander to the anti-gun crowd and become Mayor, it’s not surprising that he won’t take any sort of logical stance on the issue. He’s already on thin ice due to running a(n even more than usual) corrupt campaign, he cannot afford to lose any more support.

      • On a side note, I have an easy way for DC to achieve “voting representation”:

        Split the 10-sq mile District of Columbia in half along the river, and put the two pieces back into the original states (Maryland and Virgina) that gave up the land to become DC. You could keep the seat of government (White House, Congress, Sup Court, govt buildings in the center of the city) as a separate federal district without any actual residents.

        Guess what? everyone who lives in that area is now represented in Congress! And the federal taxpayers no longer have to pay for the insane costs of running that disfunctional city.

        • Just giving VA to the Democrats for all state wide offices and making Maryland even more screwed up that is a good plan. Not. The only thing funny about that idea is watching DC and Baltimore Political fight it out for more screwed up city in Maryland.


  7. Wow now we know what happened to Ming after he retired from Hollywood!!! Wonder if him and Flash keep in touch??

  8. The link goes to the story at “The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)” by Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic. I hope TTAG does a review of that story written by a writer who (I believe) has a reputation for having been anti-gun.

  9. The article is a good one. It does seem like the author is still struggling with an ingrained viewpoint.

    He states…

    Conservative gun-rights advocates should acknowledge that if more states had stringent universal background checks—or if a federal law put these in place—more guns would be kept out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally unstable.

    …but never backs this up with any evidence. He also seems fixated on the gun show loophole, despite his only evidence for that being the Brady Campaign.

    Finally, he states

    The gun lobby must also agree that concealed-carry permits should be granted only to people who pass rigorous criminal checks, as well as thorough training-and-safety courses.

    despite detailing in his own article how there are multiple states that have constitutional carry where it simply isn’t an issue.

  10. The article is fairly well-balanced, except that the author will not recognize that the end result of any and all regulation is the banning of private gun ownership. That’s the agenda of the gungrabbers and it will never change. So, there’s no such thing as “common sense” when dealing with those people. If pro-gun forces compromise, all they are doing is providing the wingnuts with the rope they will use to hang us.

  11. I agree with most of the comments made by those that read the complete article. My kudo’s to a journalist that is willing to look at SOME facts, and be willing to alter his personal opinion.

    The end of his article pretty much sums up how we, on TTAG know to be true.

    One thing he briefly mentioned that is compelling and instructive to us all. That in the last 20 years, concealed carry permits have sky rocketed. Plus, in the most recent states. Crime has leveled off or been reduced. Also, that more citizens support gun rights today than they did 20 years ago.

    This shows me that we are winning the fight. But no time to get lazy. Stay vigilant, keep actively defending your rights.

    However, this is my favorite part of the article:

    “According to John Lott, an economist and a gun-rights advocate who maintains that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens helps curtail crime, the crime rate among concealed-carry permit holders is lower than the crime rate among police officers.”

    Now, am I correct that most police officers are armed? Committing more crimes than Robert or Nick? Imagine that.

  12. My Pug dog needs some forehead wrinkly skin grafts after a fight with a demented pit-bull. Yo Vince, help my Pug out, you frickin’ moron. Be at my Pug’s side. WHERE you from you alien F*** ?

  13. Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

    Those 3,800 cops have no responsability to protect you WHAT SO EVER!!!

  14. The cops aint around to protect. They are around to determine ‘what the hell happened’ and bring the perpetrators (of you and your loved ones deaths and disfigurement) to justice.

  15. “They may not be at someone’s side at every moment, but they’re around.”

    So when I had a guy just climb on my ambulance while mumbling some voodoo as I was trying to turn at an intersection, I should have just relaxed and kept driving. I mean, there was a police station around the corner but it still took them time to respond. WHY!? Because Im not the only one in the city with a damn problem.

    My point? They may be around but they are not the majority of any population and one person with one problem is not the only. Hell there are a lot of ambulances here in Shelby County from various agencies, but we are still driving by wrecks and other incidents because we are helping other people.

Comments are closed.