A gun ban that misfired
The D.C. gun ban, enacted in 1976, prohibited anyone other than law-enforcement officers from carrying a firearm in the city. Residents were even barred from keeping guns in their homes for self-defense.
Some in Washington who owned firearms before the ban were allowed to keep them as long as the weapons were disassembled or trigger-locked at all times. According to the law, trigger locks could not be removed for self-defense even if the owner was being robbed at gunpoint. The only way anyone could legally possess a firearm in the District without a trigger lock was to obtain written permission from the D.C. police. The granting of such permission was rare.
The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’m buying stock in “unintended consequences”. It’s the new, big thing.
Paul-Cincy on January 16, 2013 at 10:44 AM
Who cares about facts and actual crime, how did the gun ban make people “feel”? That’s the important thing, right sesquipedalian?
Flange on January 16, 2013 at 10:46 AM
As horrible as these shooting incidents are, they are not “9/11″ where they can pull all the people together and pass whatever law they want…the fact is, on any given summer weekend, the same number of people are killed in the streets of Detroit, or Chicago…and no one can find a thread of solid evidence to show that restricting gun ownership in the U.S. lessons or strengthens those events.
The fact is, gun laws have little effect, one way or the other…the 2nd amendment is clear, no law, period, no law…the only effect, it is unconstitutional, and it gives government more control over something that is not their business.
right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Question for gun banners: If we can’t deport 10,000,000 illegal aliens, how will we ever be able to confiscate 300,000,000 legal guns?
Knott Buyinit on January 16, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Exactly the logistics stagger the mind…the “committees” and “regional gun control offices”, what a boon to the government…which means what a burden to the taxpayer.
right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Guns, unlike illegal aliens, can be thrown in an incinerator by the thousand without generating an international uproar and possibly a world war to take down the nation doing it.
It’s horribly grim, but it’s true. Be watchful.
MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 11:19 AM
If it were done via the amendment process I’d bet that most would turn in their firearms. Even done via gun grabber laws I think a majority would hand them in. The reason is that the majority of gun owners are law abiding people and would follow the law. The other is that if it came to the firearms or family that most would choose family over death or imprisonment. I don’t doubt there would be some that resist but the admin would make damn sure that a lesson was made of them to ensure cooperation of others.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 16, 2013 at 11:27 AM
You are correct about “law abiding”, but in this instance, I think the reasonable people would understand that the government overstepped their authority, and that in a couple of years it would be reversed…I would not give up mine, and how could the court system possibly handle the flood of “arrests” or warrants.
I think there is a point where tyranny is not tolerated and rebelled against…I think the 2nd amendment is that line in the sand.
right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 11:35 AM
Easy, make the person losing the weapon pay for the enforcement, say $20,000 per weapon confiscated.
That would net the government 6 trillion dollars alone.
astonerii on January 16, 2013 at 11:45 AM
I’m reminded of the U.S. Army’s WW2 policy of disciplining any soldier who contracted VD. When it became apparent the ranks were becoming incapable of fighting due to unreported and untreated diseases, the policy was changed to discipline any soldier not receiving treatment. Problem solved.
There’s an analogy in there somewhere.
Xavier on January 16, 2013 at 12:02 PM
I think reasonable people would abide by the Constitution if it we amended it to remove the right to bear arms.
The court system wouldn’t have to handle anything. All that needs happen is to declare that having a firearm permit or a single registered firearm is cause enough to carry out a search and confiscate the arms without compensation.
I know there would be holdouts but how many people would continue to hold out after seeing the guy next door raided and killed because he held out and resisted.
I have no doubt the the cops would go in heavily armed and with a shoot first policy for any one that takes a stand. Remember at that point any holdouts would be criminals.
If a full blown ban were to take place there would be blood and the left doesn’t care. Just remember it may take 25 million dead to kick off the utopia.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 16, 2013 at 12:07 PM
Ya think?
The Law of Unintended Consequences is a Natural Law, not one made up by a government. Sort of like the Right to Defend Oneself as recognized by the Second Amendment.
Any law that “feels good to implement” should probably be immediately tabled and forgotten. The downside is always much worse.
ProfShadow on January 16, 2013 at 12:08 PM
First of all, we won’t.
That said, most of the gun-owning public are law abiding citizens. Those people will, presumably, follow the law by and large.
Illegal immigrants are, by definition, committing a crime that they actively work everyday to perpetuate. The State will not get their assistance in implementing that law.
Likewise, the small portion of gun owners who are criminals will not assist the State either. Which is a big reason for my first point, that we will never get all the guns.
JohnGalt23 on January 16, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Posted before:
I don’t have the friends or platform for the level of community organizing it would require, but someone should get the word out that as soon as the effective date hits any gun owners who can should carry any magazine, bullet, etc. down to their local police station or sheriff’s department to turn themselves in and/or seek guidance on the law.
Don’t be bullhorned away once they catch on. Each individual needs clarification on their particular situation, and each needs it in writing.
Then go home, get something else, and bring it for the same clarification.
If just 10% of the new criminal class could do this it would be overwhelming. I figure here in Charlotte it would be ~50K people, and that’s not including the county.
I can’t figure out any other peaceful way. We’re in the South, so I figure most of our LEOs would be supportive (and even refuse to enforce it re:illegal aliens, but who knows.
(verbaluce, read it slowly and break it down into parts if you need to. You can do it. We believe in you.)
rogerb on January 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM