And I had isolated reports of a helicopter and a fire late last night and early this morning.
12 comments:
Derek
said...
I live near 6th and H Street and was woken up about 3:30am by the sounds of the chopper circling. I walked out to see it and it had the spot light on or near 7th street. It finally stopped circling about 4am and I barley was able to get back to sleep.
RE: [MPD-1D] Helicopter Over H Street Last Night Tuesday, October 6, 2009 9:40:40 PMFrom: "Durand, Gary (MPD)"
There was a burglary at 707 H Street NE. The officers wanted to check the roof. While they were inside the heard noises they thought may have been someone hiding in a crawl space on the roof. Nothing was found
I couldn't quite tell from the article but was she jaywalking? Before I start blaming the lousy driving by Metrobus, we should know if the accident was avoidable.
this shooting is pretty scary. that's a little bit too close to the H street strip than I'd like it to be. sounds like a random shooting to me... even scarier. early evening too. maybe we need to start carrying
Anon 11:09, I don't see anything to indicate that it was a random shooting. It almost never is random. Are you privy to some magical knowledge the rest of us lack?. And exactly how would people carrying guns have prevented this?
Nothing is ever random - especially this type of violence. As far as carrying, I feel that the District's gun laws, by far some of the most draconian in the country, have proven to be completely ineffective.
I'm not an advocate for totally recinding gun control laws, but I feel that individual citizens should have the right to arm themselves... appropriately. There' no reason why a law-abiding citzen who is mentally competent shouldn't be able to carry a personal handgun - I'd argue that individual citizens should have to go through certain training to be able to carry a weapon, and continue to "recertify" as it were - but that's a personal opinion.
After a decade plus of having the DC police do little to proactively make me safer I realized I don't really trust the DC government that much anymore.
I'm not saying that I'm comfortable with hand guns for all, but the idea that we can rely on DC police to protect us is an idea that just isn't based in reality.
I agree with your reasoning and, although I'm a liberal, gun-control really isn't one of my hot button issues, but, for arguments' sake, let's take the "conceal and carry" argument to what I see to be its logical conclusion.
Let's say this person on a bike had a gun on him. What would have happened? I see the options as:
1) The guy had no idea he was a target and is shot before he can do anything with his own gun.
2) The guy sees the guy roll up on him with a gun, pulls his own, and they exchange fire. He is killed.
3) They exchange fire but the attacker is killed.
4) They exchange fire and a passerby is killed.
5) They both pull guns, exchange fire, and no one is killed.
So in 50% of those scenarious, the guy still ends up dead. In one, a bystander is killed. It seems like there's only 1 of 5 possible scenarious under which the desired outcome (the presence of a second gun prevents death) occurs. I can see maybe one could argue that (3) is also a "good result" but that's still only 2 out of 5 scenarios, and he's just as likely to die as have those "good" results.
The counter argument, I suppose, is that he dies 100% of the time without a gun. But the extra gunfire no doubt increases the chances of bystanders being killed which, let's be honest, is what those of us posting on this blog are really concerned about since none of us is likely to be a "targeted" killing in the way they seem to happen around here.
This is not even getting into the argument that most people that would just carry guns under a new "conceal/carry" system would have no expeirence with them and would be less likely to hit what they are aiming for, etc. That arugment brings up licensing requirements, waiting periods, mandating training and background checks and other restraints that big-time Second Amendment proponents don't want any more than they do current gun control laws.
Bottom line is that I don't see *us* (non-criminals) carrying guns as the effective deterrent that it seems to be at first thought. Maybe I'm wrong, though, I'll admit this certainly isn't a scientific theory I've put forth.
James, You're absolutely right - the majority of the time, simply having a firearm does not make you more safe or less likely to be killed and does in fact increase the chances of innocent bystanders being killed or injured by errant rounds.
I piss off alot of gun-right's advocates when I point out that I agree with the right of the individual law-abiding, mentally competent citzen to be able to own and carry firearms - with the caveat that they should be licensed, and regulated, and done so in a manner that requires adequate training, certification, and recertification.
Furthermore, politics and ethics aside the real issue is the fact that most of the arguments break down into a "right" versus "evil" debate, which ignores the truth of the matter - that firearms are tools. All tools have specific purposes, and this leads to the obvious regulation of "tools" based on their intended purpose, i.e., a compact pistol (personal defense), bolt action rifle or long barreled shotgun (hunting), or an assault rifle or submachine gun (police/military).
In any case, the real issue here is that this city has a stringent gun control policy that is ineffective in preventing violent criminals from obtaining and using firearms, and a police force that is mismanaged and inadequately trained.
Add to that the general acceptance of levels of crime and violence by the population, a Council that is self serving and incapable of governing effectively due to it being entangled with bureaucratic oversight from a Congress with no real interest in managing a city effectively (due, in large part to the poor leadership of previous District governments, elected by said population) and you have a perfect storm of insanity.
I'm guessing that this is not the "shining city on a hill" the Founders were envisioning - more like a stagnant shantytown in a swamp.
One thing I do know is that it is easier and cheaper to get a license to purchase and sell firearms than it is to get a liquor license. Am I wrong on this?
I also piss off the gun advocates to by saying I see nothing wrong with having a firearm, but you should be licensed and that automatic weapons are only for the military. They get so upset and treat me as though I have committed a cardinal sin.
12 comments:
I live near 6th and H Street and was woken up about 3:30am by the sounds of the chopper circling. I walked out to see it and it had the spot light on or near 7th street. It finally stopped circling about 4am and I barley was able to get back to sleep.
same here from 12th and Maryland Ave - seemed to light up the alley behind my building for quite some time....
RE: [MPD-1D] Helicopter Over H Street Last Night
Tuesday, October 6, 2009 9:40:40 PMFrom: "Durand, Gary (MPD)"
There was a burglary at 707 H Street NE. The officers wanted to check the roof. While they were inside the heard noises they thought may have been someone hiding in a crawl space on the roof. Nothing was found
Gary Durand
Lieutenant
First District
I couldn't quite tell from the article but was she jaywalking? Before I start blaming the lousy driving by Metrobus, we should know if the accident was avoidable.
Thanks for posting Lieutenant.
I am sad to hear that the victim of the bus accident has died.
this shooting is pretty scary. that's a little bit too close to the H street strip than I'd like it to be. sounds like a random shooting to me... even scarier. early evening too. maybe we need to start carrying
Anon 11:09,
I don't see anything to indicate that it was a random shooting. It almost never is random. Are you privy to some magical knowledge the rest of us lack?. And exactly how would people carrying guns have prevented this?
Nothing is ever random - especially this type of violence. As far as carrying, I feel that the District's gun laws, by far some of the most draconian in the country, have proven to be completely ineffective.
I'm not an advocate for totally recinding gun control laws, but I feel that individual citizens should have the right to arm themselves... appropriately. There' no reason why a law-abiding citzen who is mentally competent shouldn't be able to carry a personal handgun - I'd argue that individual citizens should have to go through certain training to be able to carry a weapon, and continue to "recertify" as it were - but that's a personal opinion.
I used to be knee-jerk liberal on gun control.
Then I moved to DC.
After a decade plus of having the DC police do little to proactively make me safer I realized I don't really trust the DC government that much anymore.
I'm not saying that I'm comfortable with hand guns for all, but the idea that we can rely on DC police to protect us is an idea that just isn't based in reality.
Hillman,
I agree with your reasoning and, although I'm a liberal, gun-control really isn't one of my hot button issues, but, for arguments' sake, let's take the "conceal and carry" argument to what I see to be its logical conclusion.
Let's say this person on a bike had a gun on him. What would have happened? I see the options as:
1) The guy had no idea he was a target and is shot before he can do anything with his own gun.
2) The guy sees the guy roll up on him with a gun, pulls his own, and they exchange fire. He is killed.
3) They exchange fire but the attacker is killed.
4) They exchange fire and a passerby is killed.
5) They both pull guns, exchange fire, and no one is killed.
So in 50% of those scenarious, the guy still ends up dead. In one, a bystander is killed. It seems like there's only 1 of 5 possible scenarious under which the desired outcome (the presence of a second gun prevents death) occurs. I can see maybe one could argue that (3) is also a "good result" but that's still only 2 out of 5 scenarios, and he's just as likely to die as have those "good" results.
The counter argument, I suppose, is that he dies 100% of the time without a gun. But the extra gunfire no doubt increases the chances of bystanders being killed which, let's be honest, is what those of us posting on this blog are really concerned about since none of us is likely to be a "targeted" killing in the way they seem to happen around here.
This is not even getting into the argument that most people that would just carry guns under a new "conceal/carry" system would have no expeirence with them and would be less likely to hit what they are aiming for, etc. That arugment brings up licensing requirements, waiting periods, mandating training and background checks and other restraints that big-time Second Amendment proponents don't want any more than they do current gun control laws.
Bottom line is that I don't see *us* (non-criminals) carrying guns as the effective deterrent that it seems to be at first thought. Maybe I'm wrong, though, I'll admit this certainly isn't a scientific theory I've put forth.
James,
You're absolutely right - the majority of the time, simply having a firearm does not make you more safe or less likely to be killed and does in fact increase the chances of innocent bystanders being killed or injured by errant rounds.
I piss off alot of gun-right's advocates when I point out that I agree with the right of the individual law-abiding, mentally competent citzen to be able to own and carry firearms - with the caveat that they should be licensed, and regulated, and done so in a manner that requires adequate training, certification, and recertification.
Furthermore, politics and ethics aside the real issue is the fact that most of the arguments break down into a "right" versus "evil" debate, which ignores the truth of the matter - that firearms are tools. All tools have specific purposes, and this leads to the obvious regulation of "tools" based on their intended purpose, i.e., a compact pistol (personal defense), bolt action rifle or long barreled shotgun (hunting), or an assault rifle or submachine gun (police/military).
In any case, the real issue here is that this city has a stringent gun control policy that is ineffective in preventing violent criminals from obtaining and using firearms, and a police force that is mismanaged and inadequately trained.
Add to that the general acceptance of levels of crime and violence by the population, a Council that is self serving and incapable of governing effectively due to it being entangled with bureaucratic oversight from a Congress with no real interest in managing a city effectively (due, in large part to the poor leadership of previous District governments, elected by said population) and you have a perfect storm of insanity.
I'm guessing that this is not the "shining city on a hill" the Founders were envisioning - more like a stagnant shantytown in a swamp.
One thing I do know is that it is easier and cheaper to get a license to purchase and sell firearms than it is to get a liquor license. Am I wrong on this?
I also piss off the gun advocates to by saying I see nothing wrong with having a firearm, but you should be licensed and that automatic weapons are only for the military. They get so upset and treat me as though I have committed a cardinal sin.
Post a Comment