Grim's Hall

It just doesn't work:

The Washington Post points to rapidly increasing violent crime in D.C. as a reason to prevent efforts to reduce gun control.

So on one night last week, violence struck with a vengeance: Five women and three men were shot outside a Northeast Washington nightclub, two women were shot on Oates Street NE, a man was shot on Atlantic Street SE, two men were shot on Kenilworth Avenue NE, and a man was found shot to death on 13th Street NE. In all, the five unrelated shootings in three hours produced 13 injuries and one death.

Those statistics demonstrate the absurdity of Utah Republican Sen. Orrin G. Hatch's proposal to legalize gun possession in the District of Columbia. The city needs fewer, not more, lethal weapons in homes and on its streets. It could, however, use more officers, especially tactical and undercover officers working crime-ridden neighborhoods, as well as a uniformed presence in targeted communities to work with public-spirited citizens. Most of all, nothing short of the apprehension, prosecution and conviction of violent offenders will bring District residents the sense of security and safety that they deserve.

Now, maybe I'm reading something into this, but it sounds like all these people were shot in the streets, not in their homes. Five unrelated shootings--there must have been a lot of lead flying around the nightclub to drop eight people (mostly women!).

What this means is that the D.C. police have lost control of the streets--a fact I find easy to believe, as I almost never see a police officer in D.C. except when they are escorting some dignitary somewhere, or if I go to the Mall. The Post's answer is more cops and tight gun control, in the town with already the strictest anti-gun legislation in the country. Well, let's analyze that.

The cost of hiring lots of new police is very high: officers must be found, trained extensively, supplied with lots of expensive equipment, monitored by a bureaucracy, and provided with a pension and health benefits in addition to, of course, salary. The cost of reducing gun control is very low: an officer to run background checks, another to handle the applications. And what do you get for your money?

With the police officers, you get a few extra police on the streets, whose presence may delay crimes for a few minutes until the police pass on. With liberalized gun policies, you get thousands of armed citizens everywhere in the district, inclined to obey the law and unwilling to endure barbarity. Which gets results, to say nothing of results per dollar? You bet.

Besides, what is this nonsense about nothing making us feel safer except more prosecutions and arrests? Reading about people being arrested for murder does nothing to make me feel safe--it makes me remember that I live in a violent city. What makes me feel safe is a loaded .44 Remington Magnum revolver, and a wife watching my back with her 10mm Automatic. Jeffersonian Democracy at work--let the brutal beware.

Let them beware of us, citizens.