The Manhattan Project
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
Sculpture Garden Ice-Skating Rink Remains Closed
We mentioned it briefly at the end of the day yesterday and it's been reported several other places since then, but we wanted to share some more details on how our good friend Brian Beutler was shot early Wednesday morning in Adams Morgan. Brian, 25, is the Washington Correspondent for the Media Consortium, a network of progressive news organizations like Mother Jones and the American Prospect. He's being described as a "well known liberal blogger" and while that's not incorrect, Brian is a hardnosed reporter. You can read some of his work here.
The story goes like this: Brian and his friend Matt had a few drinks at the Black Cat on Tuesday night. Brian sent out a Twitter that he was heading over to the bar just before midnight, and he and Matt were there for a little under two hours before deciding to walk to The Diner in Adams Morgan to get something to eat. While cutting across Euclid Street between 16th and 17th Streets NW, the two men were approached by who they've described as two black male teenagers, one of whom was wielding a small handgun. They demanded their wallets and cell phones, but before Brian and Matt had a chance to make sense of what was going on, one of the teens fired several shots and Brian was hit. Matt called 911, and Brian was taken to Washington Hospital Center, where his entire spleen was removed. He's expected to make a full recovery.
There's currently some question as to how many bullets injured Brian. At first we all heard that he had been shot three times -- once in the abdomen and twice in the shoulder. It now appears that Brian's shoulder injuries may not have been caused by a bullet wound, so he may have only been shot once or twice.
No suspects have been arrested. Acting Third District Police Commander George Kucik told us that detectives are reviewing crime camera footage from the corner of 17th and Euclid to determine if the suspects ever walked past the area of the camera prior to or after the shooting.
A few of us went down to the hospital to give blood yesterday, including myself and Music Editor Amanda Mattos, and we were able to see Brian afterward. He was awake, in some pain and on morphine, and making jokes about how other friends of his had already sent flowers, and we had arrived empty handed. Brian still had the red Black Cat stamp on his hand from his visit to the Red Room. Despite having a lot of tubes coming in and out of his body, he looked remarkably well. His main concern was that no one should be overly worried about him. He asked us to make sure everyone knew he was going to be fine.
Brian's friends are working on putting together a benefit concert to help him defray some of his medical bills and lost work time. You can be sure to hear more about that on this web site.
Photo of Brian Beutler courtesy former DCist Catherine Andrews. And yeah, that's half of my face to the left and Catherine to the right.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
That really is a shame. Glad he is going to be ok. Scary because I have been in the exact situation he was in so many times before in terms of making that walk. Ugggg.
Bunch of fucking savages in this town.
if only Brian had been in his home at the time. he could have had a shootout with his mugger using his newly acquired handgun. i think DC should allow concealed weapons too so we can take the law into our own hands (and also hang out near the 7 Eleven and eat doughnuts).
Good to know he's going to be okay. Here's hoping for a speedy recovery and a quick arrest.
i know mcgillicuddy is being facetious with the gun comments, but there are a lot of people making comments on other sites that are carrying this story about how "if he was armed this wouldn't have happened."
does anyone think that's true? are the thugs going to be scared of regular joe's packing heat, or will the city just turn into a giant shooting parlor? i'm starting to think that we could end up with a little of both.
One block over on 18th you can basically walk with ease, it's well lit, semi cop heavy and though there are still problems you are least likely to encounter two idiot teens with guns. Why don't the cops hang out back there as well? Frustrating. I don't know this guy but definitely sorry it had to happen. F this S**t.
This is really sad and it occurred only blocks from my house. I walk by that intersection at night all the time.
Even sadder, if the police catch the teenagers that did this, nothing will happen to them in DC juvenile justice system, they are rarely charged as adults.
i think if the DC police were actually worth their weight in pig shit, this wouldn't have happened. in the meantime i'll stick to walking on the main roads and giving people the evil eye as i walk past them.
ps - good to hear Brian is on his way to recovery. i'd bring him a Guinness if the hospital would allow it.
Euclid St., well-known danger area. Not to blame the victim, and I'm truly sorry this happened, but people need to be streetwise and avoid trouble spots.
Jeebus. I only live a block or so from there on 16th between Euclid and Fuller.
@ LiliMoon
Really? Because I've walked on the street numerous times without incident. Your comment is quite a passive-aggressive attempt to blame the victim despite your assertion otherwise. The "trouble spots" that people have been mugged, shot at and/or killed lately have been places anywhere from Northeast to Friendship to Downtown. It can happen ANYWHERE.
As for anyone who thinks a gun would've helped this situation, it takes only a second to go for a gun in your pocket, but a nanosecond for a scared mugger to shoot you in the spine. I don't know if Brian tried to be a hero like Rusty from IHateDC, but it's a good bet if you comply with a mugger, you won't get shot. That's not always the case, but I like those odds better than trying to argue wi
As I said in a previous comment thread, the corner of 17th and Euclid is hopeless, and has not changed in years despite all that's going on around it. If certain families are providing support for the criminals who plague this location, they should be removed from their houses (and I say this as a good but frustrated liberal) under some trumped up eminent domain call by the city, and it should be turned over to law-abiding, low income residents. Why not make it middle class police/teacher/librarian housing?
And why don't the police ever catch any of these armed robbers!? They don't respond quickly enough, and don't canvass the area quickly enough afterwards to catch anyone. After a murder on Irving Street in 2003, I watched them take their sweet time about setting up a perimeter, trying to block off escape routes, etc. They never made an arrest in that case, despite my following up with MPD and being told they "knew who did it."
*supposed to read "with a mugger." at the end there.
This could have been any one of us...
We'd be happy to promote the benefit concert too. Please be in touch if we can help.
http://vinyldistrict.blogspot.com/
Having been latex-gloves-deep in a shooting victim quite a few times this year, (it's a shooty summer in Seat Pleasant,) I can confirm that this in factwould not have happened if Beutler had been armed. One of two other outcomes would have happened.
1) *Everyone* would have been shot (mugger, Beutler, friend)
2) Just Beutler would have been killed and the muggers would have stolen his gun.
Sorry to damage anyone's adolescent fantasies of a handgun being a useful thing for Joe Citizen.
freshyill - do you live in the Art Deco roachpit known as The Century? I used to live there, too.
DC is an extremely unsafe city. Period.
The problem here has to do with a crack house that is dealing dope on the corner of 17th and Euclid -- clients mug people there to pay for their rock. The cops are aware of the house's operations and have intermittently posted a police car there (It was there when I parked on the same block Tuesday evening)
What to do? It is an old story -- I suspect that doing the sophisticated surveillance needed for warrants that could seize dope and arrest dealers is too expensive, or something like that.
Oh, BTW, for the kind of goons that mug people, the concept that regular Joes might be packing a gun is at best irrelevant, at worst *awesome* because in their heads they will then have a *really cool gunfight* where they get to show how thug they are.
IMGoph: I think particularly in a situation like this, it would not have done a bit of good for the victim to have been armed. Generally whoever has their piece out and shoots first is going to win. If a mugger pulls his gun at you, are you really swift and crafty enough to unholster, draw, and aim your concealed weapon, then fire the first shot or scare him/her away before you get shot yourself? Personally, if I were a mugger, the idea of my victim being armed wouldn't scare me off, because I know that their wallet is far more accessible than their concealed weapon. And they'll probably be so scared anyways that their shooting won't be so great. If the victim is lucky, maybe someone in the vicinity will come to their aid, but I wouldn't rely on it.
So yeah, concealed carry freaks are kind of dumb. If you can't roll without a weapon, you need to find safer places to party.
A staffer for Specter got mugged and his skull cracked open this last week near H and 13th NE. Not headline grabbing but still, scary upturn in crime going on here.
@demonfafa
What sucks is that it's not a bad area during the day, but it's a magnet for bad people at night.
When I lived in New York, I commuted to Journal Square in Jersey City every day, and would sometimes work really odd hours. Journal Square is a shithole 24/7, but I never felt scared there, because there's nobody worth robbing there. It's not profitable. Contrast that with Hoboken, which is A LOT like Adams Morgan. A coworker of mine got roughed up and robbed there, because there are plenty of people to rob as soon as you get off the main strip.
I live extremely close to where this shooting happened. It feels unsafe. Not long ago I was walking home along Euclid after leaving 18th St. and I saw two guys walking my way at the opposite end of the block. I made a quick turn up 17th, and then RAN up to Fuller. It's shady.
I've taken my chances way too often there. From now on, I'm walking up to Columbia
So when's Jim Graham gonna close Euclid and take their liquor license?
Oh, it's a street? I thought you meant Club Euclid, where the phat funky Pythagorean crew be layin down fresh geometries an' s**t.
@SomeoneStoleMyScreenNameJason
Park Meridian. Right next door I think, but it's kind of behind that Swiss Embassy Cuban Interests Section building that always has a bunch of people hanging out in front in the morning.
Good point, Monkey, Jim Graham should do something like that - close the infamous City Paper article crack house down. Not the street per se...
There was a story in the city paper a few months ago about a guy also coming home from the black cat, also getting mugged and beaten just a couple of blocks away from where this latest incident occurred.
It is a violent area, but the reason it's a big story is the fact that it involves a white journalist. In Adams Morgan.
If you were walking from the Black Cat to the Diner, why the hell would you take Euclid? It's out of the way.
Is the crack house the one that has a flimsy wooden door with a hole in it? Pretty much all the other houses on the block are nice ones.. that one really stands out.
Concealed weapon advocates: "The possibility of the victim carrying a gun will deter criminals."
Criminals: "Sweet! A free gun AND a wallet!"
Re location who cares?? Fairly easy to get shot anywhere in DC...anyone remember last month a guy taking a couple bullets at 9 PM on a Sunday at Kalorama and 20th? Not exactly in front of a crack house..
ADW Gun
SHIFT: MID
07/02/2008
07/02/2008
0154
UNK
1600 Euclid St NW
Sidewalk
303
08091060
Status: Open
C-1 and C-2 both report on the date time and location that they where approached by S-1 and S-2. S-2 then stated, "Give up the phones." C-2 then stated back to S-2, "You’re kidding, right?" S-2 then told S-1, "Get the gun." S-1 then produced a silver colored handgun and fired three shots at C-1. C-1 was struck in the shoulder, side and back area. C-2 was not shot. Both suspects were last seen going westbound from the location on foot into the 1600 blk of Euclid St. NW. C-1 suffered three gun shot wounds and was taken to med-star by ambul.#21 were he was admitted in stable condition. No property was obtained. Both suspects appeared to be juveniles.
@demonfafa: your suggestion that "trouble spots" can be found anywhere (including Friendship Heights[!?]) is ridiculous. Look at crime maps, neighborhood listserves, whatever you want and see how many times 17th and Euclid comes up vs. how many times the most dangerous corner in Friendship Heights comes up.
There is a crime camera a the corner of 17th & Euclid, but the incident happened out of the view of the camera, but MPD hopes the camera will show the assailants coming or going from the scene.
FYI bitch and moan all you want about 17th & Euclid, but there were four ADW's (assault with a deadly weapon) on 18th street last weekend....
I live there. I feel pretty much just as safe there as I do anywhere else in DC. We live in a city. You are going to take risks walking around at night. This could have happened anywhere. You are hearing so much about it because it's a popular white journalist near Adams Morgan where "everyone hangs out".
Contrary to popular belief, those of us on 17th & Euclid aren't in the midst of gun battles every night.
We even *GASP* all had a community picnic last weekend!
if i were Steve Jobs and wanted to live up to my "genius" status, i'd be adding a gun to the iPhone right about now.
It probably was an angry commenter.
Thank you, Teddy.
I also live there, and have lived within a few blocks of there for 10 years. And the level of hyperbolic hysteria going on in some of these comment threads is pretty over the top. Like you said, makes it sound like a war zone over there. I'm not going to deny that there are problems, but the picture being painted by a lot of commenters is not an accurate one of my home.
My best wishes to Brian for a speedy recovery.
Glad to hear he's gonna be OK. In other news, this "well known liberal blogger" is now a "well known conservative blogger."
My place is not too far from there. I always noticed that that particular corner always attracted more "local youths" than others nearby, but I could never figure out why. Learning there's a crackhouse there explains a lot, but it's still surprising.
It's certainly no war zone (the rest of the area is quite nice), and I never had any trouble on that street myself, but it seems that most muggings in the area are near that intersection, and every year or so, something major happens, like that drive-by several months back. If they could just clear that corner, it would pretty much take care of the entire neighborhood.
There was always a sketchy element hanging around that block, no doubt. And I also recall seeing the parked police car at that intersection often during the day and at night. I used to live 2 blocks away and made that walk almost every weekend.
I am so goddamned sick of the crime in DC.
I'm glad he'll be ok. I'm in that area frequently, and this really does make me nervous. I'm not trying to politicize this at all, but I can't help but think of the gun ban our inept Supreme Court just struck down.. my blood boils every time I think about it.
I wish someone would organize some coherent protest about it, thus far I've seen nothing.
@mauricelevy..if you honestly think "if they could just clear that corner it would pretty much take care of the entire neighborhood" is a true statement, you're smoking some of the crack that everyone keeps trying to accuse the Bennetts of selling...
Re: Criminals: "Sweet! A free gun AND a wallet!"
This is ridiculous. You really think criminals are stoked about the possibility of their victims being armed? Does that make any sense?
My parents live in Colorado where concealed weapons permits are allowed and I feel far safer there than DC. People need to stop being emotional about this issue and look at the facts. The number of murders in this city went up during the handgun ban, and it sickens me that I can't defend myself outside of my house. The police can't be everywhere at once people.
I used to live on 16th & Euclid in the Dorchester and walk my wife home from the old Trim Salon on 18th above DCCD at night. They used to always throw rocks, eggs, apples, oranges and other stuff at us. There was always shady shit taking place on that corner. I left DC for NYC 6 years ago now and it looks like those same scumbags are up to the same old shit. I really hope this guy is OK, and I really hope something gets turned upside down to get those fuckers out of there!
First of, I'm really glad that he's ok. That's some scary stuff.
That being said, it just happens. It does. Black, white, latino, young, old, rich, poor, etc. It happens. I live in Columbia Heights now (very near Petworth) and I know that everytime I walk home anywhere in the city I am risking it. My policy is to "go with my gut" and hope for the best while staying involved in my community and making sure that the people around know who I am.
I have had friends mugged, roughed up, whatever all over the city, some at gun point and some not, and the worst one of all occurred at 18th and Q when my friend was robbed by 3 girls. Sure there are areas that are more crime ridden, but anyone who thinks that you can insulate yourself from everything is sadly out of touch with reality.
Also being from a "gun toting state," more guns in the city will never solve the crime problem. Please see New Orleans for more details on how well that works. Education, community involvement, smart policing and true commitment are a start...
DC is for criminals.
Come stop by Arlington some time. People can have guns and carry them openly or concealed with a permit. Funny, but we have far fewer violent muggings and even fewer Wild West shoot-outs.
Maybe it's just that river we put there to keep out the DC criminals.
@Teddy, demonfafa, others: the idea that this location is no more dangerous than anywhere else in the city is just plain wrong. Spend some time with crimemap.dc.gov and see the facts for yourself.
There's a crew that runs that corner. I've volunteered with kids in that neighborhood for many years and they all know about those guys. They are pretty dangerous , from what the kids have told me.
I've see the police with their car there, I've seen the mounted cop there. I'm not blaming the victim at all. but it is mezzomezz on the safety. Especially at night.
I have to agree that having a concealed gun would make me feel secure, but I don't think it would make me more secure. It takes a lot of training to be able to use a gun well. Plus, if you're out at the clubs and having a good time, do you really want to have to bring your 9?
maeella, your post is just typical of the pathetic blindness so many liberal DCites have to the severity of DC's constant crime. Obviously, human nature being what it is, crime can and does happen anywhere. But to move from that statement to your conclusion, which is that DC is no different from anywhere else, is a whopping logical fallacy.
You write: "I have had friends mugged, roughed up, whatever all over the city, some at gun point and some not, and the worst one of all occurred at 18th and Q when my friend was robbed by 3 girls."
This is horrible. Can I ask how long you've lived in DC? I come from Chicago. I grew up there and spent much of my post-college life in different city neighborhoods, some nicer than other. In 9 years of living in the city, and 30 years of being in or around it, I know exactly TWO people who had the misfortune of falling victim to violent crime during that time - a cousin who was mugged on her front doorstep in the late 80s, and a guy who was attacked by a random dude he picked up on the street for sex.
I lived in NYC for 3.5 years before coming to DC. In that entire time, I did not meet a single person who had fallen victim to violent crime. Not a one.
DC is extremely dangerous. And people need to accept that, not simply pass the crime off as a sad but unavoidable part of urban living.
"The cops are aware of the house's operations and have intermittently posted a police car there (It was there when I parked on the same block Tuesday evening)"
@jmaggs: Last time there was a shooting there, the cops set up a check point and had a cop posted there every night for a month.
"but it's kind of behind that Swiss Embassy Cuban Interests Section building that always has a bunch of people hanging out in front in the morning."
@freshyill: I think that apt. building is closed for renovation. I assume the tenants were relocated/evicted.
"There is a crime camera a the corner of 17th & Euclid, but the incident happened out of the view of the camera, but MPD hopes the camera will show the assailants coming or going from the scene."
@adamsmorgan: If the assailants headed due west as your earlier police report post reads, then they ran right past the camera. The crime probably took place closer to Euclid & Mozart.
There are different interpretations on this thread as to what exactly this incident may mean, if anything. Someone noted that we live in a city. And while this is true, that fact alone does not make it incumbent upon me to passively accept the level of violent crime so prevalent around me.
Sure, I could live elsewhere. But, I don't clearly see why I should cede my right to reside peacefully, while criminals enjoy their own rights and infringe upon the rights of those around them. Such a reaction would only serve to reinforce the value and efficacy of crime by its very nature--intimidation.
Evidenced by Brian's experience, and I'm sure by those of many others, many of these incidents aren't even crime for profit, but rather crime for power. In Brian's case, the kids didn't even go for his wallet. Whether it's from a resentment toward new affluent neighbors or a disdain for society in general, the underlying objective in all of these cases is for the author to get his subject to submit. And we do ... without fail.
And while we debate this in our nation's capital, I can't help but find it horribly ironic that we call upon the people of other nations to fight the intimidation and terrorism that plagues their daily lives, while we as individuals cannot do the same ourselves. Maybe that parallel is cliche, but had I been in Brian's shoes, I know I would have been positively *terrified*.
Time to brush up on the Krav Maga. Bring out your inner Zohan.
Come stop by Arlington some time. People can have guns and carry them openly or concealed with a permit. Funny, but we have far fewer violent muggings and even fewer Wild West shoot-outs.
Yet Richmond has those same laws in effect but with different results....
Come stop by Arlington some time. People can have guns and carry them openly or concealed with a permit. Funny, but we have far fewer violent muggings and even fewer Wild West shoot-outs..
Yeah, I don't think the ability conceal and carry has nearly as much to do with the reduced rate of crime in Arlington. I can't think of any neighborhoods in Arlington that I would consider dangerous as far as having drugs/gangs/crack houses, etc etc.
I would get off my North Arlington high horse if I were you.
I don't think that Richmond is nearly as bad as DC.
The point is: guns are not the problem.
Criminals fearing someone is armed (whether it's a law-abiding citizen or a rival drug dealer) tends to prevent some crime. However, that only solves some of the problem.
Aside from abortion, the biggest impact on crime tends to come from putting criminals in jail. If repeat offenders are locked up, they aren't on the streets committing more crimes. It's why you end up with funny NYT headlines: "Crime is Down Yet More People in Prison".
15 and older and you should be charged as an adult for violent crimes. Let's stop filling prisons with non-violent drug offenders and put the violent ones there instead.
Speaking of ridiculous, the number of murders went up in Colorado during the time the DC gun ban was in effect. Do you suppose people who couldn't legally own guns in DC moved to Colorado to commit homicides?
The gun ban was in effect in DC from 1976 through 2008. The number of firearm-related deaths in Colorado increased 12.3% between 1999 and 2004 according to the Crime and Justice in Colorado 2006 [PDF] published by the Colorado Department of Public Safety. During the same years in DC, all homicides declined by 17.8%.
If you're afraid of being shot to death, it was a good idea to move from Colorado to DC.
The number of murders in this city went up during the handgun ban
Yes, and it's also gone up since the Immaculate Reception. Correlation does not equal causation. There was a little something called crack cocaine which, independently of the legal availability of guns, may have had something to do with the murder rate.
FWIW, the crime rate went down during the handgun ban years. In 1976, when the ban started, there were 7083.5 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2005, it was 6062.5 per 100,000. Again, correlation does not equal caustation; the crime rate fell nationally during that period, probably mostly due to cohort effects and economic changes.
I remember reading that almost all the difference in crime rates in America can be explained with reference to three factors, none of which have any necessary correlation with guns or lack thereof:
1. Population density (higher: more crime)
2. Income inequality (higher: more crime)
3. Proximity to Canada (higher: less crime)
So, a highly-dense, highly-unequal, far-from-Canada city is probably going to have a high crime rate whether guns are banned or given out as party favors.
"Come stop by Arlington some time. People can have guns and carry them openly or concealed with a permit. Funny, but we have far fewer violent muggings and even fewer Wild West shoot-outs."
Oh please, give me a break. The differences between Arlington and most parts of DC are night and day. As if Arlington has anything close to the poverty, unemployment, crap schools and public/low-income housing that D.C. has (all of which correlate very closely to a higher crime rate). And as has already been mentioned, Richmond operates under the exact same rules, and yet their crime rate is as bad--if not worse--than DC's.
But you already knew this.
What's a guy gotta do to sell this rock that wards off tigers? TIGERS, people! Hello? Is this thing on?
care to elaborate on that one? what does abortion have to do with violent crime? i'd like to see where you're going with this one.
"maeella, your post is just typical of the pathetic blindness so many liberal DCites have to the severity of DC's constant crime."
And yet s/he speaks of living with the reality of crime every single day.
I'm not sure what's more pathetic: someone struggling for answers in the midst of a violent crime epidemic, or someone who so clearly loathes DC as much as you do continuing to post angry diatribes on a DC-centric blog.
"Criminals fearing someone is armed (whether it's a law-abiding citizen or a rival drug dealer) tends to prevent some crime."
Show me one impartial study that supports this.
As a DC native who lives in Mount Pleasant and cares deeply about all people who live in this city from those who were born and raised here to those who have transplanted and may find it hard to call home, I find this thread very disheartening.
I challenage those who are upset about the MPD or are terrified of this "extremely dangerous" District or are disdainful of all of its problems, to take this frustration and put it to positive use for all of the community. To invest themselves more fully in DC. To learn more about the city. To explore possible systemic reasons for why it is so plauged by crime. To explore reasons of why a young man, when someone asks him if he is serious about his demand for property, might go so far as to shoot someone. To take what you learn and put it to practical use by volunteering at a local community center or tutoring at a school or hosting a neighborhood picnic. To get involved in the local community to try to make it all that you know it can be and all that you are demanding it be.
My thoughts goes out to Brian and his family, to the young men who committed this crime, to all of those in the community from those who have been dealing with this type of situation for years to those who are shocked by the first time something like this has hit home.
My hope is that we view our city and all those who live in it as one. That we don't dissassociate ourselves from DC's problems while at the same time ranting about them endlessly. That we see all sides of the picture and see that we see that ultimately we all want the same things: love, respect, freedom, empowerment.
Jesus imgoph, ever hear about Freakonomics? This theory got *lots* and *lots* of press a couple of years ago.
"care to elaborate on that one? what does abortion have to do with violent crime?"
There was actually a study done about this...can't remember who did it. but the extremely short executive summary is that, isolating all other factors, since Roe v. Wade the number of abortions have been disproportionately performed on individuals with lower incomes, which reduces the number of children born into lower income families, and reduces the number of violent criminals.
Or something like that.
This issue is really beginning to encourage me to get on my personal hobbyhorse: how people overestimate the incidence of crime and underestimate the incidence of other risks.
In 2005, the District of Columbia reported a rate of 1,508.4 violent crimes per 100,000 people. That's reported rate: given that not all violent crimes are reported, the real number is probably higher. Even though the numbers have been moving in the right direction for a while, people are nevertheless quite right to be concerned about this exceptionally high rate. Any is too much.
But an exceptionally high crime rate is not the same thing as an exceptionally high rate, because crime, believe it or not, is not that common. Even here. By way of comparison, more than half of the states in the United States lose people in fatal car crashes at rates exceeding 1,508.4 per 100,000. Even if you exclude every crash involving drugs or alcohol, five states still lose people in fatal crashes at rates exceeding 1,508.4 per 100,000.
People in Wyoming are significantly more than twice as likely to die in a car crash than people in DC are to be the victim of a violent crime. If DC is a dystopian hellscape of violence, then Wyoming is a neverending re-enactment of "The Road Warrior." But for some reason, you never hear about Lord Humungous's siege of the Powder River oil refineries.
Oh jesus, TwoOhTwo. Just, wow. Hippie commune much?
The criminals don't want "love" or "respect." They want whitey's iPhone and his Amex. That's how they get their "empowerment."
Seriously, get off the cloud. It's not 1969 anymore.
Information about the freakonomics abortion theory: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/abortion/
Glad to hear Brian is going to be okay.
@cminus: What is it about proximity to Canada and crime? That's an interesting finding. To be truthful, I'm skeptical about the statistical significance about such a correlation. I mean, just given that Detroit (#1 in murder, according to FBI), Cincinnati and Buffalo are in the top 10 for highest murder rates, and they're all relatively close to Canada makes it almost seem possible. Or are the other two criteria just really strongly felt in these areas?
jason & 14thandyou: thanks for responding to my query. at least one of you answered it without too much snark.
guess i missed that study. oh well, it's hard to pay attention to everything in the world when you're surfing the web. sudoku just tends to distract you here and there...
Well, i woud say that Cleveland is a pretty dangerous city and it's close to Canada. But it also has a large concentration of people and a massive inequality of income. so maybe it would be even worse if we were any further south...say Cincinnati?
@PWM: If I'm remembering this study correctly, it'd mostly be that the other two criteria are very strongly felt, although I should point out that Cincinnati is actually closer to Nashville than it is to Canada (by land, anyway -- as the crow flies, Canada should be closer).
The people behind the study themselves didn't think the finding was significant and pointed it out as kind of a joke, though, so I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.
Abortions for some, tiny American flags for everyone!
(thank you Kang and Kodos)
From the D.C. Courts...
New felony cases in 2007: 5,256
New felony cases in 2006: 5,889
New felony cases in 2003: 8,016
Can somebody please explain why TWO-THIRDS fewer new felonies cases were filed in 2007 than in 2003??? I sure as hell don't think crime went down by 2/3.
C-:
Are you sure about your numbers? The data I've seen says that Wyoming has the highest fatal crash rate per 100,000....and it's more like 38 fatalities per 100,000 rather than 1,500.
Here's the data I've seen.
Criminals fearing someone is armed (whether it's a law-abiding citizen or a rival drug dealer) tends to prevent some crime.
I'm sure this is true. But I'm almost as certain some crime has been deterred by Monkeyrotica's rock.
Monkey (9th and U NW, 2:00 am): "What's a guy gotta do to sell this rock that wards off tigers? TIGERS, people! Hello?"
Thug 1: "I say we skip this guy and rob the next one."
Thug 2: "Yeah, crazy people usually don't have much money on them."
Actually, I agree with you on switching law enforcement priorities, but good luck convincing your elected officials on that. (I'd try it myself, but as a District resident, the only elected officials I've got have no power to do this whatsoever.)
If your packing and get mugged:
Hand over your wallet.
Dude turns and walks away.
Pull out your piece and regulate.
Are you sure about your numbers? The data I've seen says that Wyoming has the highest fatal crash rate per 100,000....and it's more like 38 fatalities per 100,000
Doh! Decimal point error on my part. To quote Emily Litella, "fuck me raw."
To amend my earlier post, I meant "TWO-THIRDS as many" not fewer. Apologies.
@CPG: "Re: Criminals: "Sweet! A free gun AND a wallet!"
This is ridiculous. You really think criminals are stoked about the possibility of their victims being armed? Does that make any sense?"
No, it does not make any sense. It's just true. Keep in mind street criminals are 100% idiots; they're the kind of guys who couldn't hack it in *more complicated* or *skill-based* crime venues. They also tend to believe themselv immortal and/or extremely bad criticla thinking skills.
The concept that they're somehow sitting at home, high, thinking "oh, uh oh, I better not go rob someone, because some statistically significant number of them might have a gun that they would then shoot and kill me with" is just, wow, you've got to meet some of the actual folks out there doing this stuff, let me *assure you* they don't get that far in their SWOT analysis of mugging people.
Again, I mostly deal with the shot ones, but I also am not proud to have a relative or two in state prison. Using your decision processes as a proxy for theirs doesn't predict well.
Similarly, the fantasy that you will somehow defend yourself from street crime with a handgun is purely about your own emotional need to feel like a Big Man shared by many of the "it's a small dog that needs to bark all the time" type guys.
Try for instance this scenario, taught in Hogan's Alley to FBI agents. You're assigned to serve a subpeona or put up a wanted poster or something in the bank - I forget what it is. But while you're doing it, a robber bursts in and sticks up the bank. You of course are armed with a semiautomatic pistol and pretty well trained in handgun usage. What do you do?
If your answer (like most new agents) is "draw your weapon" you are shot with simunition by the instructor/robber, because, absent uniform / authority, cover, concealment, advantage on draw, confusion, multiple targets or more force on your side, you've got a verging on even chance that they will shoot you before you get through the "Federal Ag-" part of it, and *all they're doing is stealing money*.
Think really hard on that part - someone is trying to steal, worst case, $200 from you. Are you going to *get into a gunfight* about *$200*, Tex?
Cops need to get out of their prowlers and start walking around more. That's a start.
Brian put up no resistance and they tried to kill him. So what's the relevance of the argument about whether the criminals would have been more violent had he resisted?
Also:
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880526010
I don't know the statistical relevance of these types of stories (it's about a guy stopping a shooting rampage with his lawfully concealed handgun), and I personally drink far too recklessly to want to own a gun, but the right to self-defense is inalienable. Whether prudent or not in a given set of circumstances, it should be the individual's choice, not the government's.
Has anybody on here read Lush Life by Richard Price? I haven't, actually (just read *about* it), and don't want to say at all that this situation is the same as his fictional hipster getting shot (on the Lower East Side of NYC, where I also walk around without too many worries), but wondering if any one has and if it might provide any insight into this conversation....
Has anyone here actually tried drawing a gun out of a holster? I have shot some pistols and it's pretty hard to do the quick draw. If someone comes up to with the gun already out, sorry son, your gun is of no use to you. It's probably only going to get stolen too.
So, if you carry a gun and you are concealing it...then it might as well not be there. Has anyone here drawn on someone, because I'd like to know how exactly it went down. I'd really like to hear about someone who actually succeeded in defending themselves with a gun while out for a nice time with their friends.
Well, click on my link above and you will.
I don't need statistics to tell me that concealed carry would definitely deter crime. How many 16 year old kids need to get shot in the back running away with a newly obtained wallet before they learn that robbing people is dangerous business? Not many - they're dumb but not that dumb. Plus, chances are I'm a much better shot than they are. You shoot a gun like a "gangsta" and you're not going to hit much.
And as someone noted above, they don't need to see a gun to start shooting at you. Obviously, they don't need a reason at all to shoot you. They're animals.
"the right to self-defense is inalienable. Whether prudent or not in a given set of circumstances, it should be the individual's choice, not the government's."
Not according to the 2nd Amendment. And there's certainly no inalienable right to defend yourself with a gun.
Dang!!! All y'all need a vacation. Happy Fourth.
Ironically, I think that "open carry" is the only thing that would actually *have* a deterrent value.
I don't know that we are allowed to or should try to go halfway and conceal it beneath our (presumably) gut-stretched polo shirts. Bandoliers! Thigh Holsters! Quick-draw SMGs!
Soon enough we will be at what seems to be the ultimate apogee of any society which relies on mutual armament to preserve order - the Taliwagon-style pintle-mounted Russian machine gun on clapped-out Toyota Hilux.
OK, that's one story from Reno Nevada.. I want to know if any here has actually ever tried to fend off an attacker with a gun. Or has even attempted to draw a gun in haste. Any military types here who can weigh in on how easy/difficult it is? How likely you are to do it well with ne or two drinks in you?
I am sure that some people can do it it. But A) I don't buy the argument that the way to deal with crime is to shoot people who appear threatening to you. This guy who go t shot...I don't think having a gun would have helped him. B) I don't think most of us are OK drawing on someone and snapping into the mindset that I will kill this person if they keep fucking with me. I'm sorry, not everyone is able to do that. Are you telling me that all of us are natural born killers? the army doesn't think so. they spend a lot of time in basic training trying to drum that resistance to violence out of you.
If you want to defend yourself, I honestly think you'd be much better off spending a lot of time learning jui jitsu or krav maga. THEN, maybe you get to have a gun.
How many 16 year old kids need to get shot in the back running away with a newly obtained wallet before they learn that robbing people is dangerous business? Not many - they're dumb but not that dumb.
Nice in theory, but last time I checked, the right to self defense exists only in cases where there is an imminent threat. Not when the threat is over, and running away from you. I suppose you might get a sympathetic jury.
In many states (not entirely sure about DC), lethal force can be used to stop a person from fleeing after comitting a felony. Besides, you could argue that the threat was not over (he could be turning around to shoot you as he ran).
"Show me one impartial study that supports this."
There are some decent studies out there about concealed carry and crime prevention/deterence. Getting data about actual crimes is hard enough, getting data about crimes that haven't happened is a lot tougher. If you are really interested, go look at the NRA and GOA sites. They have links to a variety of studies. Some are better than others. There is no such thing as an impartial study. At least not one done by human beings.
Regardless, it's fairly obvious that criminals prefer easier targets. They may be quite stupid, but how often do you hear of uniformed officers getting mugged?
>Not according to the 2nd Amendment. And there's certainly no inalienable right to defend yourself with a gun.
From the Heller opinion: "JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. . . it was the central component of the right itself"
"the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose."
From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Our country was quite explicitly founded under social contract theory, under which the right to self defense is pre-existing and inalienable. No government can ever legitimately require you to give up your right to defend yourself.
If they are going to let people have guns in DC they should be on the outside, where you can be seen to be armed and you can get at it easily.
For get all this talk about what's ethical or moral. Forget about how gun laws may or may not be the most real solution to a crime and poverty.
Let's just get practical. Who, in DC, is honestly going to be physically and mentally ready to draw on and shoot some street punk? I'm sorry, I just don't think most us have the ability to do it for real. It's just a Miami Vice trip you're on. It ain't real.
Who, in DC, is honestly going to be physically and mentally ready to draw on and shoot some street punk?
Anyone with proper gun training, which you should have before you even buy the gun, and especially anyone with prior military or police training. Should Sally McCellphone carry a piece? No, but I would have no problem drawing down on some thug. Gun or no gun, when walking in a city at night you should alert and prepared to react.
I'm sorry, and this may have been said already (was busy the day before the holiday...), but here I go: on Euclid... between 16th and 17th... Late into the morning hours. Were you trying to get mugged? Read a few police reports. Not to schadenfreude it up, far from it, live and learn.
I have a few observations -
1, I recognize that such crime is caused by a myriad of factors and that it is too easy to just assume that arresting more people will stop it. However, viscerally, I'd like to see the police cracking skulls simply as deterrent.
2, The majority of people who advocate the usefulness of a firearm have never experienced a situation in which a firearm could be used and condoned (nor have I).
3, I'm reading and responding to this act of violence because it happened to someone who was white and in my neighborhood while the perpetrators were black. Part of my brain understands that within the wider metropolitan area, including PG county, there's a lot more violence that goes underreported, under served, etc. Another part of my brain does not care and is focused solely on my rage at the savagery found among small but very dangerous parts of our community.
4, There are some savage human beings who live in washington who are beyond rehabilitation and for whom a segment of my brain hopes there will be only the most painful and heinous punishment someday.
Proper gun training? Sorry dude, I don;t buy it. I know a lot of people who would probably get through "proper gun training" and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near them if they had a gun. Hell. No.
Cleveland, did you even read how this went down?
"Give up the phones." C-2 then stated back to S-2, "You’re kidding, right?" S-2 then told S-1, "Get the gun."
That's plenty of time for someone trained to draw and shoot before the crooks even have it out of their hoodie.
He is real lucky to be alive. I'd rather have my fate depend on my reaction time rather than the bad aim of some punk. Many times they don't just want your money, they want to be a little punk and hurt you or rape the girl you are walking home (remember that murder in Georgetown a year or so back?).
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
TLB - you're citing *opinions* as to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, but nothing in the Amendment states that we have an inherent right to protect ourselves with guns. Nothing you posted supports that assertion, only judicial interpretations of it. Which is fine so far as it goes, but don't try to sell me on the opinion that the right to defend ourselves with a handgun is *inalienable*.
HCE - "Regardless, it's fairly obvious that criminals prefer easier targets."
Of course they do, but nothing about packing heat--or being presented with the opportunity to pack heat--makes you an inherently more difficult target. As others have postulated, about the only thing, gun-wise, that would make an individual a clearly more difficult target would be an individual openly carrying a loaded firearm. Concealed carry laws, or the right to possess a firearm, have never been demonstrably proven to lower violent crime in any appreciable way. They suffice to make the individual carrying the gun feel more secure, but in reality do nothing to lessen the chances that said individual will be targeted and attacked.
What I would like to see--and I recall seeing a statistic regarding this, though I can't immediately recall where--is how many firearms that are used in the committment of a crime were at one time purchased and owned legally. The number of legally purchased firearms that eventually make their way into the hands of criminals and perpetrators of violent acts is startling, and I've yet to see a convincing appeal that allowing even *more* firearms to enter the public domain would serve to lessen the number of firearms ending up in the hands of criminals.
Well said, #97.
Taking the long view, absent, uncaring, or unskilled parenting + lack of economic opportunity portends frightening things for our country.
"That's plenty of time for someone trained to draw and shoot before the crooks even have it out of their hoodie."
That's a real easy assertion to make when posting on a message board from the comfort of your home/office/espresso retailer. I think you'd find the reality of the situation to be a tad bit different, and I find it a highly dubious proposition to believe you would have behaved differently than the victims described in the police report. Most of us would either freeze with fear, or quickly hand over anything demanded by the muggers. Only a miniscule number would even think to draw a gun, should they have one on their person, and an even fewer number still would be successful in shooting their attacker before being shot themselves.
Well, the inalienability of the right of self-defense is a philosophical argument insofar as it's based in natural-rights/social contract theory. Which just happens to have been the theory upon which our government was founded (and the Bill of Rights written.)
If you want to divorce the meaning of the Constitution from that, go right ahead, there are plenty of people who do. If your actual point is that the 2nd Amendment does not contain the text "you have the inalienable right to defend yourself with a handgun" then I concede.
But that's what it means. :)
"I find it a highly dubious proposition to believe you would have behaved differently..."
Not if you and others like you don't allow me the opportunity to defend myself. You pretty much admit you would just give up. That's you, fine. Don't push your personal preferences on me. You want to go along and get on the boxcar? Don't expect me to follow.
The number of legally purchased guns not used in a crime is astounding.
And how about all those legally purchased cars used in crimes? Not to mention all those legally purchased cell phones?
Suances, do you live in this neighborhood? Anywhere even remotely near it? I can only go by personal experince of my life in DC, not by some Google map statistics. I'm sorry, but that's how I live.
I lived in Woodley Park for 4 years. My car was broken into 4 times, I was mugged once, and a roommate was mugged once, both walking back from the Metro to our place. And I'm going to guess that Woodley is on your list of "safe" DC neighborhoods. I was also mugged once in SoHo when I lived in New York, and that was because I was young, stupid, drunk, alone and had never lived in a city. I learned really quick.
Since living on Euclid for 3 years, none of those things have happened (oh well, there's the biggest jinx ever!! Knock on wood).
So sorry, despite your different opinion, I'm going to rely on personal experience, what my gut tells me, and practicing safe city-living techniques, not a spreadsheet.
It doesn't hurt that I'm out in the community, know my neighbors' names whether they are in low-income housing or another bazillion dollar condo development, and make an effort to strike up conversation. I've watched these same "sketchy kids" from the corner protect my car, walk me home, make me lemonade, etc.
If you feel so strongly about 17th & Euclid, don't come here--more parking for the residents!
[And aside from all this petty "my 'hood is better/safer/taller/faster/stronger than your 'hood" BS, my prayers go out to Brian, his companion that night, and his family]
I couldn't agree with dcist20009 more
"Even sadder, if the police catch the teenagers that did this, nothing will happen to them in DC juvenile justice system, they are rarely charged as adults."
Similar incident on T street by 9th about 6 months ago, a 17 year old firing shots in the day as school was letting out, caught by the police, but was considered a juvenile. Given DC's juvenile system he is probably back out now. I don't care ho wold you are, if you are committing a crime with a gun you should be charged as an adult. And I consider myself a pretty progressive liberal, just happened to have been held up a couple of times.
@Teddy, I actually do live in the neighborhood, just on the other side of Columbia Rd (but thanks for disinviting me from the neighborhood). Lived in Adams-Morgan since '99, DC a bit longer.
You dismiss objectively verifiable facts and instead base your opinion on what your gut tells you. OK. Not sure what else to tell you. Sounds like a GWB-style exercise in self-deception.
Just FYI, I lived in Woodley Park for several years, and it is much safer than Adams-Morgan. My car was parked on the street and never messed with once, was never mugged, never knew anyone who was, and enjoyed going for late night walks just for the heck of it. So, it all depends on the luck of the die, but statistically, my experience is probably more representative.
I wouldn't be so sure the 17th & Euclid crew or customers at the open-air drug market are responsible, much less the family at the so-called "crackhouse" (!). Like any number of streets in A-M and C.H., Euclid will be a thieves' highway as long as there are thieves and inebriated young professionals (such as myself, often enough) walking late at night. Just to pick a random example, the men who jumped me at that corner last year were Hispanic, not black.
But mainly, best wishes to Brian, who is a gentleman and a scholar.
I guess the Media Consortium is hoping for Obama to get elected so they won't have to pay for healthcare for their employees!
First and most importantly, I really hope Brian will be OK.
Second, I have had similar experiences--I have been mugged twice, one of which was at gunpoint--and based on my own experience, I am not convinced that a concealed weapon would have made helped me at all for two reasons.
In both cases, the muggers snuck up on me. In one case (at 9am) the mugger came up from behind me and then put a gun about a foot from my face. He asked for my wallet, I gave it to him, and he ran from the same direction he came from. In the other case, there were two muggers, but no gun. These guys were walking towards me on a sidewalk (around 7pm), and just after they passed me they grabbed me from behind, forcibly took my wallet, and then ran. I do not know for sure what percentage of muggings involve the perpetrator surreptitiously sneaking up on the victim, but I assume many criminals try to use the element of surprise.
Personally, I don't see how a concealed weapon would have prevented either mugging. For all I know, the muggers could have assumed that I had a gun. Whether or not they made such an assumption, they still mugged me.
At least one previous poster mentioned that a concealed weapon could be used by a victim to shoot the perpetrators after the crime has occurred and when the perpetrator is leaving. That may be true, but it seems to me that that position is based on a few assumptions. One assumption is that the victim would successfully shoot the perpetrator. In both my experiences, the muggers ran away, and I assume that shooting a moving target is difficult. Moreover, if you miss...well...then I suppose the stray bullet could hit someone else, go through a window, or some other unfortunate result. Another assumption is that the perpetrator would not shoot back at the victim.
Since I didn't have a concealed weapon during those muggings--and I still don't--I suppose I can't say for sure that it wouldn't have helped me. However, my assessment of the ostensible effectiveness of a concealed weapon is based on actual experience and not a hypothetical scenario of what I would do.
Maybe I should add that the total amount of money I lost in both muggings was $11 in cash plus $20 to replace my driver's license. When I walk around at night, which I do every night, I do not carry my ATM or Smarttrip card, and I carry no more than $10 in cash. If I get mugged again, then they can have my wallet.
A post script to my previous post: While I hesitate to speculate about Brian's experience--and Brian, if you read this, I apologize for speculating--but I also am not convinced that a concealed weapon would have helped Brian.
If I read the report correctly, one suspect told the other to pull out the gun, and then that suspect did the shooting. One previous poster stated that they would have used that window of time to pull out a concealed weapon and shoot first.
For one, that is betting your life on beating someone else at quick draw. Secondly, it is betting your life that the crook doesn't shoot back. Thirdly, it assumes that if you don't shoot the crook, then your bullet hits nothing else: no innocent bystanders, no parked car, nothing.
Again, I apologize in advance to Brian for making guesses about his situation, but based on my own similar experiences, I am not convinced that a concealed weapon would have prevented him from being shot.
"Speaking of ridiculous, the number of murders went up in Colorado during the time the DC gun ban was in effect. Do you suppose people who couldn't legally own guns in DC moved to Colorado to commit homicides?
The gun ban was in effect in DC from 1976 through 2008. The number of firearm-related deaths in Colorado increased 12.3% between 1999 and 2004 according to the Crime and Justice in Colorado 2006 [PDF] published by the Colorado Department of Public Safety. During the same years in DC, all homicides declined by 17.8%.
If you're afraid of being shot to death, it was a good idea to move from Colorado to DC."
This is incredibly dishonest. First off, way to cherry-pick your stats. If you go from 1999 (185 murders) to 2006 (158 murders) there was actually a decrease. Also you make no attempt to compensate for population increase (something Colorado has experienced while DC's has been decline for some time until the past few years). Consider that there are typically more murders in DC than all of Colorado for any given year despite the fact that Colorado has roughly 8x the population and you see where I feel safer.
Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cocrime.htm
TLB - you're citing *opinions* as to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, but nothing in the Amendment states that we have an inherent right to protect ourselves with guns. Nothing you posted supports that assertion, only judicial interpretations of it.
Right, but "the judicial interpretations of it" is all we have, unfortunately. Until the composition of the Court changes, the Second Amendment means what the majority of the current sitting justices mean it to.
Unless you meant that in a "Scalia! That's just, like, your opinion, dude!" sense.
If cocaine and heroin were legalized, tightly regulated, and taxed sky-high, the incentives for this kind of institution would disappear and the scumbags drawn to them would decrease in number.
The miserably failed prohibition on narcotics is responsible for making our streets combat zones.
Speaking of miserably failed prohibitions, what's with all the snark and misery over the death of the gun ban? Maybe this will shatter our delusion that that pathetic, impotent response was in any way moving us forward to a safer society. No more complacency, no more blaming rightwingnuts for gun proliferation. Prohibitions dont work period. Other incentivation schemes are called for.
I'm no NRA psycho; I'm 100% about pragmatics. Look at the results of your cherished gun ban.
If cocaine and heroin were legalized, tightly regulated, and taxed sky-high, the incentives for this kind of institution would disappear and the scumbags drawn to them would decrease in number.
The miserably failed prohibition on narcotics is responsible for making our streets combat zones.
Speaking of miserably failed prohibitions, what's with all the snark and misery over the death of the gun ban? Maybe this will shatter our delusion that that pathetic, impotent response was in any way moving us forward to a safer society. No more complacency, no more blaming rightwingnuts for gun proliferation. Prohibitions dont work period. Other incentivation schemes are called for.
I'm no NRA psycho; I'm 100% about pragmatics. Look at the results of your cherished gun ban.
Crime is DC's dirty little secret. True, it's not scientific, but if you take an informal poll of friends that live in NYC or SF and a poll of friends in DC, you'll almost always find that DC residents have been victims of crime far more often.
Yet many of us pretend that it's no big deal, and that it's something that can't be changed.
Many in DC don't even bother to report crimes anymore.
It's that denial and defeatist attitude that keeps things as they are.
(Also, late to the party again, sorry)
"Proper gun training" ... you don't need that to know to avoid sketchy situations in the first place. BUT, i'm assuming that the young man was drinking? Judgement therefore impaired as far as when/how to draw, let alone the effect on one's aim.
Back from a long weekend away from the gun-argument stuff.
HCE:
"You pretty much admit you would just give up. That's you, fine. Don't push your personal preferences on me. You want to go along and get on the boxcar? Don't expect me to follow."
If you're packing heat, then I don't want you on my boxcar. I'm stating that most people, when faced with the imminent threat of someone pointing a gun at them and demanding something, are generally prone to give up that "something" in order to avoid being shot. This is true regardless of whether one is a resident of a jurisdiction that permits the ownership of handguns, concealed carry, or something more draconian. Using your argument, there's no legal argument against the banishment (or tight regulation) of any type of firearm--if it can be used deftly by an individual as a means of self-protection, then surely it must be legal to do so. Unintended consequences be damned.
"The number of legally purchased guns not used in a crime is astounding."
No, it's not. Sadly, it's not at all astounding. As we're told that the citizenry is equipped to use guns, that legally purchased weapons by law-abiding citizens are threats to no one, and that an implied right to self-defense by any means necessary inherently trumps any arguments to the contrary stemming from societal harm, one would expect that the number of legally purchased guns used in the commission of a crime is practically nonexistent. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In most jurisdictions, the gun used in the commission of a violent crime was, at one time or another, a legally purchased gun.
"And how about all those legally purchased cars used in crimes? Not to mention all those legally purchased cell phones?"
This is a non-sensible argument, as cars and cell phones are not designed with the purpose of inflicting harm, and are either non-portable and non-concealeable (autos) or non-lethal (cell phones).
Another good reason to not patronize any business in DC....the scum can't control it's primitive urges.
I think that it is a shame that we as people are using the brutal shooting of this young man to argue gun control.
He should be able to walk the streets if this city without worrying about having some idiot rob him and shoot him. Period.
But alas, that isn’t how it is here so let’s talk reality.
If he was carrying a conceal weapon he still would have been shot. Unless he pulled it as the men were approaching and had it in his hand. No one is fast enough to pull a concealed weapon on someone who already has theirs drawn. If you think so you have been watching too many westerns.
I have been mugged once in this city.
The mugging here took place in the early 1980's on 14th when it was a really dangerous place to be at night. I had a pistol on me and when the mugger jumped out and pointed his pistol, in my face I gave him, everything he asked for and he left. Should I have shot him in the back over a wallet, some cash, a watch, and some jewelry as he ran away?
No because then I would be in prison. Shooting someone in the back to get your stuff back is called murder.
I work primarily in VA now and have a concealed carry permit. But 99.9% of the time when I am in an area where I feel I need to armed, I wear it on my belt in plain site.
Now that, deters crime. If they can see it, they tend not to mess with you.
Should the citizens of the District have to right to keep weapons in the house? Yes.
Should they have the right to carry concealed weapons? I say yes.
But more importantly, they should have the ability to walk the streets of their city without having to fear for their safety.
We need more and better police.
We need better education for the kids.
We need more and better job opportunities for people when they graduate school.
If you want to cut down on crime in this city, give me people more and better options.
I hope Brian makes a full and speedy recovery and they catch the scumbags who did this.
boring convo/internet shoutmatch
best of luck Brian, I hope they get the bastards and you're back up at 100% ASAP
"maeella, your post is just typical of the pathetic blindness so many liberal DCites have to the severity of DC's constant crime. Obviously, human nature being what it is, crime can and does happen anywhere. But to move from that statement to your conclusion, which is that DC is no different from anywhere else, is a whopping logical fallacy.
You write: "I have had friends mugged, roughed up, whatever all over the city, some at gun point and some not, and the worst one of all occurred at 18th and Q when my friend was robbed by 3 girls."
This is horrible. Can I ask how long you've lived in DC? I come from Chicago. I grew up there and spent much of my post-college life in different city neighborhoods, some nicer than other. In 9 years of living in the city, and 30 years of being in or around it, I know exactly TWO people who had the misfortune of falling victim to violent crime during that time - a cousin who was mugged on her front doorstep in the late 80s, and a guy who was attacked by a random dude he picked up on the street for sex.
I lived in NYC for 3.5 years before coming to DC. In that entire time, I did not meet a single person who had fallen victim to violent crime. Not a one.
DC is extremely dangerous. And people need to accept that, not simply pass the crime off as a sad but unavoidable part of urban living."
The general ethos of our country is to not make broad generalizations about large ethnic groups out of respect for the individuals for whom the statement doesn't apply, but you can't make any "actionable" analysis any other way here. DC , like most other industrialized cities in the USA is undergoing a renewal of "white progress", in cities like NYC where the demographics are different it's not quite the same dynamic as DC. DC like many southern cities has a high concentration of disenfranchised and alienated african-americans who ARE the anti-thesis of this urban renewal. This is the conventional wisdom intuitive obviate. You can dance around it as much as you want but the news cycle ESPECIALLY in the Summer is going to be filled with this or that "fun-loving, full of promise, white, asian, black, latino" victim gunned down, robbed, raped or otherwise damaged by some savage inner city peasant.
OK, I can see why gun enthusiasts are bringing up the debate about concealed weapons, but for the rest of us -- doesn't it concern anyone that there is a known crime problem on this block/corner (and has been for a long time) and the police haven't done anything about it? How hard is it to build a case, get a search warrant, and arrest the people who run this "crackhouse"? Posting a police car there will only deter criminal activity while a car is actively sitting there -- it doesn't solve any of the core reasons why crime is occurring there or do anything to prevent future crimes from being committed.
If the house is rented, criminal activity is a reason for eviction -- if it's owned, I imagine the city can freeze the assets of the owner for allowing criminal activity to occur on the premises?
(I was disconnected from DCist the weekend this happened b/c I was moving to a new apt so I just now read all of these posts -- Brian, I hope you're doing well, my heart goes out to you)
It's been several weeks but this story reminds me of what happened to me and my brother. We were mugged at gunpoint at 16th St NW and Spring St. My brother was shot at point-blank range and the muggers ran off. They didn't get a thing and shot quickly.
They said "give us everything you have" and then pulled the trigger after we hesitated.
The bullet got fished out of my brother. If these are the same perpetrators, I hope they can link the bullet.
DC seems to be marred in heated violence today.