District slayings usually with gun

Washington D.C. has one of the strictest sets of gun control laws in the country. These laws are not new, they have been in force since 1976. Even ammunition is required to be registered and the possession of unregistered ammunition is considered the same as possession of an unregistered firearm. If gun control laws worked, then Washington D.C. would be a gun related violence free utopia. Folks should be able to walk the streets in even the worst of neighborhoods without fear of becoming the victim of violent crime.

We all know that is not quite the way it is.

As reported in The Washington Times:

District slayings usually with gun

The District is among the major U.S. cities with the highest percentage of people being killed by firearms, despite having one of the strictest gun-control laws in the country.

A recent Metropolitan Police Department report on homicides from 2001 to 2005 states that 901 of 1,126 homicide victims, or about 80 percent, were fatally shot. "It's a problem," Chief Charles H. Ramsey said. "It may be something that's with us for a while."

Chief Ramsey, master of the understatement. (Note: Chief Ramsey is the one person in Washington D.C. that has the authority to issue gun permits)

On the plus side for D.C.

The District did have a lower percentage of gun homicides than New Orleans at 92 percent, Los Angeles at 80.9 percent and Detroit at 80.5 percent.

See any correlation between these cities?

So, why does Washington D.C. have all these firearm problems?

Michael Campbell, a spokesman for the Washington field office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said that part of the problem is the District being surrounded by jurisdictions with less-restrictive regulations.

"You can't seal the borders," he said. "There's always going to be a market for guns."

Chief Ramsey agreed.

"We have tough gun laws, but most of our guns are coming from Virginia and Maryland," he said

I often wonder if these people actually believe the B.S. they spew forth for public consumption. Blame D.C.'s violent crime problem on Virginia and Maryland? Yes they have less restrictive gun laws, they also have less violent crime. And guess what you liars, a good percentage of the violent crime they do have comes from Washington D.C. You are both Quislings and traitors to the constitution.

Why does D.C. have so many violent criminals on the street?

Felons convicted of firearms possession can get up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Felons who use a firearm during the commission of a violent crime can receive a maximum 15-year prison sentence.

A felon is a person who has already committed at least one major crime. So, if a career criminal commits a violent crime with a firearm, the maximum sentence he could get is 15 years? That is before plea bargains and liberal judges feeling sorry for him because his daddy was a jerk? 15 years with the possibility of parole? Oh yeah, blame the guns.

What happens to the father who just wants to protect his family from the goblins that make up the statistics that prompted this post?

The District's firearms restrictions, which were passed in 1976, include a maximum one-year penalty or $1,000 fine for first-time offenders and a maximum five-year penalty or $5,000 fine for second offenders...

...Carrying a pistol without a license in the District can be either a felony or a misdemeanor charge, depending on whether the offender was carrying the pistol someplace other than in his or her home or business.

Some things are so obviously not right, that it hurts to have to point them out. Washington D.C. is a free fire zone where the goblins have all the advantage, and the law abiding citizens are treated like subjects by the powers that be.

I found this article at Keep and Bear Arms.