jsteele wrote:Frequently folks ask why there aren't protests over deaths such as this one. In fact, there frequently are protests and/or demonstrations that just don't get much coverage. Here is one:

Jeff, I’m the OP and posted this tragedy in off-topic as I think this cuts across so many forums you have on DCUM. Many crimes have been discussed in off-topic. Why did you move this one to metropolitan politics? It’s an awful tragedy no matter where you place it, but it feels like this is dehumanizing the death of a six year old girl by categorizing it as local politics.

Frequently folks ask why there aren't protests over deaths such as this one. In fact, there frequently are protests and/or demonstrations that just don't get much coverage. Here is one:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are legal gun owners in the District. I am all for gun control, checks, heck Is be happy with random.stop and frisk of people and vehicles. It's very difficult to get a permit carry in the District. I very much doubt that if legal guns are being employed in these shootings, that the carry permits have also been securedm why not support measures to enforce existing law? When gun are used in crimes in DC, the AG allows for them to be routinely pled away. Why not focus your outrage on that?

+1. The problem is not so much with the gun laws. Most of the criminals are already using guns for their crimes that they aren’t legally permitted to have.

The problem is that the gun laws are not good enough. People buy these guns, legally, from stores for this purpose and are not held accountable. Having an assault rifle could require a license and insurance, and the insurance market could help regulate who has them. We could make the bullets traceable to the gun. We could have laws holding the straw purchaser accountable. But we can’t, because a bunch of idiots have Rambo fantasies as if their AR-15 would make an ounce of difference should they end up on the wrong side of the world’s most expensive military or even their local police who probably have a surplus tank.

I understand what you *think* you're going to achieve, but that ship has sailed. The time to ban all guns was 100 years ago. There are so many guns out there right now, that you could completely ban all gun sales to everybody and shut gun manufacturers down and there would STILL be more than enough guns for the criminals in DC to use. Anyone can find an illegal gun, usually for cheaper than a legal gun, floating around on the streets. There is no amount of gun laws any county, city, state, or the country could introduce that would remedy DC's gun violence.

Unfortunately yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are legal gun owners in the District. I am all for gun control, checks, heck Is be happy with random.stop and frisk of people and vehicles. It's very difficult to get a permit carry in the District. I very much doubt that if legal guns are being employed in these shootings, that the carry permits have also been securedm why not support measures to enforce existing law? When gun are used in crimes in DC, the AG allows for them to be routinely pled away. Why not focus your outrage on that?

+1. The problem is not so much with the gun laws. Most of the criminals are already using guns for their crimes that they aren’t legally permitted to have.

The problem is that the gun laws are not good enough. People buy these guns, legally, from stores for this purpose and are not held accountable. Having an assault rifle could require a license and insurance, and the insurance market could help regulate who has them. We could make the bullets traceable to the gun. We could have laws holding the straw purchaser accountable. But we can’t, because a bunch of idiots have Rambo fantasies as if their AR-15 would make an ounce of difference should they end up on the wrong side of the world’s most expensive military or even their local police who probably have a surplus tank.

I understand what you *think* you're going to achieve, but that ship has sailed. The time to ban all guns was 100 years ago. There are so many guns out there right now, that you could completely ban all gun sales to everybody and shut gun manufacturers down and there would STILL be more than enough guns for the criminals in DC to use. Anyone can find an illegal gun, usually for cheaper than a legal gun, floating around on the streets. There is no amount of gun laws any county, city, state, or the country could introduce that would remedy DC's gun violence.

Anonymous wrote:GOD DAMN IT. When will this stupid country fo something serious about guns???? This is so SICK.

I think we should make reckless endangerment of the public illegal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are legal gun owners in the District. I am all for gun control, checks, heck Is be happy with random.stop and frisk of people and vehicles. It's very difficult to get a permit carry in the District. I very much doubt that if legal guns are being employed in these shootings, that the carry permits have also been securedm why not support measures to enforce existing law? When gun are used in crimes in DC, the AG allows for them to be routinely pled away. Why not focus your outrage on that?

+1. The problem is not so much with the gun laws. Most of the criminals are already using guns for their crimes that they aren’t legally permitted to have.

The problem is that the gun laws are not good enough. People buy these guns, legally, from stores for this purpose and are not held accountable. Having an assault rifle could require a license and insurance, and the insurance market could help regulate who has them. We could make the bullets traceable to the gun. We could have laws holding the straw purchaser accountable. But we can’t, because a bunch of idiots have Rambo fantasies as if their AR-15 would make an ounce of difference should they end up on the wrong side of the world’s most expensive military or even their local police who probably have a surplus tank.

So, because gun laws are not being enforced by prosecutors and the courts, we should have more laws?
Some crazy reasoning there.

Yep. That is why progress will never be made. All they want to do is punish those who own guns lawfully.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are legal gun owners in the District. I am all for gun control, checks, heck Is be happy with random.stop and frisk of people and vehicles. It's very difficult to get a permit carry in the District. I very much doubt that if legal guns are being employed in these shootings, that the carry permits have also been securedm why not support measures to enforce existing law? When gun are used in crimes in DC, the AG allows for them to be routinely pled away. Why not focus your outrage on that?

+1. The problem is not so much with the gun laws. Most of the criminals are already using guns for their crimes that they aren’t legally permitted to have.

The problem is that the gun laws are not good enough. People buy these guns, legally, from stores for this purpose and are not held accountable. Having an assault rifle could require a license and insurance, and the insurance market could help regulate who has them. We could make the bullets traceable to the gun. We could have laws holding the straw purchaser accountable. But we can’t, because a bunch of idiots have Rambo fantasies as if their AR-15 would make an ounce of difference should they end up on the wrong side of the world’s most expensive military or even their local police who probably have a surplus tank.

So, because gun laws are not being enforced by prosecutors and the courts, we should have more laws?
Some crazy reasoning there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are legal gun owners in the District. I am all for gun control, checks, heck Is be happy with random.stop and frisk of people and vehicles. It's very difficult to get a permit carry in the District. I very much doubt that if legal guns are being employed in these shootings, that the carry permits have also been securedm why not support measures to enforce existing law? When gun are used in crimes in DC, the AG allows for them to be routinely pled away. Why not focus your outrage on that?

+1. The problem is not so much with the gun laws. Most of the criminals are already using guns for their crimes that they aren’t legally permitted to have.

The problem is that the gun laws are not good enough. People buy these guns, legally, from stores for this purpose and are not held accountable. Having an assault rifle could require a license and insurance, and the insurance market could help regulate who has them. We could make the bullets traceable to the gun. We could have laws holding the straw purchaser accountable. But we can’t, because a bunch of idiots have Rambo fantasies as if their AR-15 would make an ounce of difference should they end up on the wrong side of the world’s most expensive military or even their local police who probably have a surplus tank.

Anonymous wrote:We are legal gun owners in the District. I am all for gun control, checks, heck Is be happy with random.stop and frisk of people and vehicles. It's very difficult to get a permit carry in the District. I very much doubt that if legal guns are being employed in these shootings, that the carry permits have also been securedm why not support measures to enforce existing law? When gun are used in crimes in DC, the AG allows for them to be routinely pled away. Why not focus your outrage on that?

+1. The problem is not so much with the gun laws. Most of the criminals are already using guns for their crimes that they aren’t legally permitted to have.

We are legal gun owners in the District. I am all for gun control, checks, heck Is be happy with random.stop and frisk of people and vehicles. It's very difficult to get a permit carry in the District. I very much doubt that if legal guns are being employed in these shootings, that the carry permits have also been securedm why not support measures to enforce existing law? When gun are used in crimes in DC, the AG allows for them to be routinely pled away. Why not focus your outrage on that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GOD DAMN IT. When will this stupid country fo something serious about guns???? This is so SICK.

Go sign up for Metro PD and take guns off the criminals if you want to actually do something about it. We don't have problems like that in my neighborhood.

Is that because you are on the local police force?

I didn’t think so.

Anonymous wrote:GOD DAMN IT. When will this stupid country fo something serious about guns???? This is so SICK.

What do you want done?

Anonymous wrote:GOD DAMN IT. When will this stupid country fo something serious about guns???? This is so SICK.

Go sign up for Metro PD and take guns off the criminals if you want to actually do something about it. We don't have problems like that in my neighborhood.

GOD DAMN IT. When will this stupid country fo something serious about guns???? This is so SICK.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's guns.

Yep. If these guys were forced to fight their battles via knives and hand-to-hand combat, Nyiah Courtney and Jeremy Black would both be alive right now. We don’t allow citizens to own RPGs or anti-aircraft guns and everybody is fine with that and no one complains that their second amendment rights are being violated because of it. So Americans are comfortable with gun control, we’re just drawing the line in the wrong place.

Actually, it’s entirely lawful for private citizens to own RPG’s and anti aircraft guns provided they comply with the relevant formalities.

I’m not a lawyer, but FWIW…

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332g

That section does not reference an anti aircraft gun. It is applicable to a surface to air missile.

This is true. However my point still stands. We Americans are willing to place limits here, so we don’t consider the second amendment to be an absolute right to own literally any kind of weapon. There’s a line somewhere and we’ve drawn it in front of anti-aircraft missiles. But why there? Like AR-15s their only function is to kill other humans. Many AR-15 owners say they need them to defend against government tyranny and that is the essence of the second amendment. But you could say the same thing about anti-aircraft missiles. In fact, if you’re worried about government tyranny they’re probably much more useful and valuable than guns. Yet no one cares that they don’t have access to them. To me it doesn’t make any sense.