Topic: DC Crime Solution . . be a victim | |
---|---|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/1/dcs-crime-solution-be-a-victim/
Washington residents are up in arms, though not armed. With violent crime up 40 percent in the first two months of the year - including double the number of robberies at gunpoint - residents are looking for ways to protect themselves. Elected officials and police have no solution.
Take Benjamin Portman, who lives on Capitol Hill, part of the 1st District, where violent crime has increased the most. A total of 110 incidents have been reported in 2012, a 69 percent jump, according to statistics obtained by The Washington Times. Two weeks ago, Mr. Portman’s male roommate and his girlfriend were robbed by three armed men in ski masks as they walked home on a well-lit street. That spurred Mr. Portman to attend a community meeting on the increased violence, which was held last week by D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh, Ward 3 Democrat. Mr. Portman asked officials why the city makes it so difficult for law-abiding residents to register guns and refuses to allow them to carry weapons outside of the home. As you can see in the video below, Paul Quander, the District’s deputy mayor for public safety and justice, responded that crime victims should give the criminals what they want. Mr. Portman protested, saying, “But how do you know you’re going live and survive? You’re completely at their mercy.” Mr. Quander thinks victimhood is preferable to self-defense. “The problem is, if you are armed, it escalates the situation,” Mr. Quander told residents. “It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.” Kristopher Baumann, head of the D.C. police union, also was at Ms. Cheh’s meeting. “Having the deputy mayor for public safety publicly announce that being victimized is something we, as residents of the District, must accept is disgraceful,” he told The Washington Times. “At the same time, Mr. Quander failed to offer a single short- or long-term solution to fighting crime in this city.” The police officer added that, “This is a mayor who, as chair of the Council, cut 400 police positions and failed to enact tougher laws for repeat offenders. Now we know why. His crime fighting strategy apparently involves giving up and just living with being scared. Accepting violent crime and victimization is not an acceptable trade-off for living in the District.” The Washington Times caught up with Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier on Wednesday and asked for her reaction to Mr. Quander’s comments. The police chief did not remember exactly what was said, but she said she thought Mr. Quander was referring only to victims of theft, not physical assault. “We always say, if you are a victim of a robbery, your best thing to do is comply and try to be safe,” the chief said. Mr. Portman said Chief Lanier approached him after the meeting, but he left unsatisfied. “I think if the chief realized that the police cannot protect us all the time, everywhere, she might come to the conclusion that it’s the right thing for her to recommend relaxing the gun-control laws in the city,” he said in an interview. “I have the right to protect myself if the police can’t.” While the council is working to ease some registration requirements, that’s not enough. The city needs to recognize that the Second Amendment guarantees not just the right to keep arms at home, but also to bear them. Doing so would give criminals reason to think twice before assaulting residents. |
|
|
|
LOL, this was a pointed article, eh?
Guns are not the only way to protect oneself. In actuality there are lots of ways to protect yourself without a gun. People really need to use their brains a bit more and stop believing guns solve anything. |
|
|
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/1/dcs-crime-solution-be-a-victim/ Washington residents are up in arms, though not armed. With violent crime up 40 percent in the first two months of the year - including double the number of robberies at gunpoint - residents are looking for ways to protect themselves. Elected officials and police have no solution. Take Benjamin Portman, who lives on Capitol Hill, part of the 1st District, where violent crime has increased the most. A total of 110 incidents have been reported in 2012, a 69 percent jump, according to statistics obtained by The Washington Times. Two weeks ago, Mr. Portman’s male roommate and his girlfriend were robbed by three armed men in ski masks as they walked home on a well-lit street. That spurred Mr. Portman to attend a community meeting on the increased violence, which was held last week by D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh, Ward 3 Democrat. Mr. Portman asked officials why the city makes it so difficult for law-abiding residents to register guns and refuses to allow them to carry weapons outside of the home. As you can see in the video below, Paul Quander, the District’s deputy mayor for public safety and justice, responded that crime victims should give the criminals what they want. Mr. Portman protested, saying, “But how do you know you’re going live and survive? You’re completely at their mercy.” Mr. Quander thinks victimhood is preferable to self-defense. “The problem is, if you are armed, it escalates the situation,” Mr. Quander told residents. “It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.” Kristopher Baumann, head of the D.C. police union, also was at Ms. Cheh’s meeting. “Having the deputy mayor for public safety publicly announce that being victimized is something we, as residents of the District, must accept is disgraceful,” he told The Washington Times. “At the same time, Mr. Quander failed to offer a single short- or long-term solution to fighting crime in this city.” The police officer added that, “This is a mayor who, as chair of the Council, cut 400 police positions and failed to enact tougher laws for repeat offenders. Now we know why. His crime fighting strategy apparently involves giving up and just living with being scared. Accepting violent crime and victimization is not an acceptable trade-off for living in the District.” The Washington Times caught up with Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier on Wednesday and asked for her reaction to Mr. Quander’s comments. The police chief did not remember exactly what was said, but she said she thought Mr. Quander was referring only to victims of theft, not physical assault. “We always say, if you are a victim of a robbery, your best thing to do is comply and try to be safe,” the chief said. Mr. Portman said Chief Lanier approached him after the meeting, but he left unsatisfied. “I think if the chief realized that the police cannot protect us all the time, everywhere, she might come to the conclusion that it’s the right thing for her to recommend relaxing the gun-control laws in the city,” he said in an interview. “I have the right to protect myself if the police can’t.” While the council is working to ease some registration requirements, that’s not enough. The city needs to recognize that the Second Amendment guarantees not just the right to keep arms at home, but also to bear them. Doing so would give criminals reason to think twice before assaulting residents. We had a nice victory here in left wing Maryland when a federal court ruled the left wing government cannot ask why you want or prove you need a concealed carry permit.. A victory for individual liberty and a defeat for the disgusting, fascist, gun grabbing left wing.. Suck it.. O'Malley.. |
|
|
|
LOL, this was a pointed article, eh? Guns are not the only way to protect oneself. In actuality there are lots of ways to protect yourself without a gun. People really need to use their brains a bit more and stop believing guns solve anything. |
|
|
|
LOL, this was a pointed article, eh? Guns are not the only way to protect oneself. In actuality there are lots of ways to protect yourself without a gun. People really need to use their brains a bit more and stop believing guns solve anything. Fling Poo at them? |
|
|
|
LOL, this was a pointed article, eh? Guns are not the only way to protect oneself. In actuality there are lots of ways to protect yourself without a gun. People really need to use their brains a bit more and stop believing guns solve anything. |
|
|
|
LOL, this was a pointed article, eh? Guns are not the only way to protect oneself. In actuality there are lots of ways to protect yourself without a gun. People really need to use their brains a bit more and stop believing guns solve anything. Next time a mugger demands your money at gunpoint, tell me how your brainpower works on them. |
|
|
|
Martial Law maybe?
|
|
|
|
I know some wont understand and others wont try to understand but the analogy to explain the pov of the 'be a victim' (highly paraphrased) explanation
is ,,'better a live chicken than a dead hero' many agree, many dont I think the walk away with your life rather than escalate it into someones death argument is valid,,, |
|
|
|
Edited by
Bravalady
on
Wed 03/07/12 03:22 PM
|
|
My first thought is, "What the heck is it about DC that makes the crime rate so high, and what can be done to fix that?"
I actually agree that more and more guns will only make the situation worse -- but letting the criminals have free rein is not a solution! There is something called community policing which seems to be making a difference in some cities. I am no expert on it, but have lived in an area where it was instituted. It had a very positive public response. That would be what I would want to look into. I would take the comment about "martial law" and turn it into "lots more police officers on the street (not all in squad cars, either) with better training and better pay." These days, someone will probably call that Big Government or Socialism or something, but to me the first duty of government is to protect its citizens. |
|
|
|
My first thought is, "What the heck is it about DC that makes the crime rate so high, and what can be done to fix that?" I actually agree that more and more guns will only make the situation worse -- but letting the criminals have free rein is not a solution! There is something called community policing which seems to be making a difference in some cities. I am no expert on it, but have lived in an area where it was instituted. It had a very positive public response. That would be what I would want to look into. I would take the comment about "martial law" and turn it into "lots more police officers on the street (not all in squad cars, either) with better training and better pay." These days, someone will probably call that Big Government or Socialism or something, but to me the first duty of government is to protect its citizens. BRAVA |
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 03/07/12 04:00 PM
|
|
My first thought is, "What the heck is it about DC that makes the crime rate so high, and what can be done to fix that?" I actually agree that more and more guns will only make the situation worse -- but letting the criminals have free rein is not a solution! There is something called community policing which seems to be making a difference in some cities. I am no expert on it, but have lived in an area where it was instituted. It had a very positive public response. That would be what I would want to look into. I would take the comment about "martial law" and turn it into "lots more police officers on the street (not all in squad cars, either) with better training and better pay." These days, someone will probably call that Big Government or Socialism or something, but to me the first duty of government is to protect its citizens. Criminals are not as stupid as everyone wants to believe. FBI report shows that the average criminal is far more concerned with a citizen having a firearm for protection than of the police. The highest crime rates in our country coincide with the strictest gun control laws. Here in Florida the rate of violent crime continued to rise 10 straight years until concealed carry was reformed and hundreds of thousands of Florida citizens received there carry permits, violent crime has steadily decreased since that legislation. It is extremely common for our common sense to be wrong about all kinds of things, the rational thing to do when confronted with statistics that contradict your common sense is to take stock of the actual data and reform your common sense. I would take the comment about "martial law" and turn it into "lots more police officers on the street (not all in squad cars, either) with better training and better pay." These days, someone will probably call that Big Government or Socialism or something, but to me the first duty of government is to protect its citizens. Even if we tripled the number of officers, the response times would still be higher than needed. The harsh reality is that the only person capable of protecting you all of the time, is you. The police are minutes away when you have seconds to live. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Wed 03/07/12 04:08 PM
|
|
When I'm president, there will be a gun on every hip and a rifle above every door.
|
|
|
|
It is just not uncommon at all for leaders to respond to a real crime problem with these same kinds of ideas, ie nothing.
Be a victim, be a good little sheep, just dont make the criminals mad. Give up your life quietly. No thanks, |
|
|
|
I actually agree that more and more guns will only make the situation worse -- but letting the criminals have free rein is not a solution! But more guns means less crime. It may be hard to believe, but the majority of people have no more desire to kill people than you do. It may also surprise you that most criminals are lazy cowards who don't want to die, they just want life to be easier. Which is why they victimize the elderly, women and children. But arm the elderly and the women and suddenly you see less crime. As the saying goes "An armed society is a polite society". |
|
|
|
I somehow am suspect of WHO conducts these studies trying to correlate gun ownership and crime and WHAT criteria they use
just for hits and iggles, I randomly selected some data to see how it could be used the criteria were 1 strict gun laws and 2 violent crime per capita I have to note that I couldnt find a CONSISTENT standard for rating what constitutes 'stricter, strictes' gun laws but that is why I mention this is done randomly, from http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/L-External-publications/2000/2000%20OSI%20Gun%20control%20US.pdf top five states for strict gun control mass hi ca ct md bottom five for strict gun control Montana Tx ALaska Louisiana Maine comparing their violent crime per capita , according to the census ranking (number one being highest rate and descending from there) from http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html (states with strictest gun control) M mass 20 hi 36 ca 14 ct 37 md 8 (States with less strict gun control) L Montana 41 Tx 15 ALaska 23 Louisiana 5 Maine 50 If I list them in order from worst violent crime to better we have this Louisiana (L) Maryland (M) California (M) Texas (L) Massachusetts (M) Alaska (L) Hawaii (M) Connecticut (M) Montana (L) Maine (L) IN this list, many observations can be made the state with worst crime rates is one with less strict gun laws the state with the best crime rates (of the list) also has less strict gun laws the bottom five (better crime rate) has two states with stricter and three states with less strict laws the top five (worst crime rate) has two states with less strict gun laws and three states with more strict gun laws in this random sampling, it seems there is a very slight difference in the crime rates in states with more strict laws than in less strict ,,,,what that actually PROVES, due to the randomness of the sample and slightness of the difference is anyones guess I personally believe it means next to nothing, but Im just showing how to pull random sampling and numbers and use them to seem to s upport one side or the other I dont really think its all about having more gun restriction or less, its more about the culture (which can vary from region to region and state to state) in which those restrictions occur,,, |
|
|
|
oh and about the op
even with a gun, you are still a 'victim', the crime just has the word 'attempted' placed in front I think its ingenuous to describe the pov as that of supporting being a victim as a means of self defense its more about what TYPE of victim is better,, one in which there is a defendant and plaintiff left to live another day or one where someone dies unnecessarily,,,, |
|
|
|
DC cops don't want to put themselves in potentially dangerous situations. They might get hurt.
I would rather have my lethal protection and take a chance than "HOPE" the criminal won't kill me. For those anti-gunners; That'll get 'em running fer the hills. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 03/08/12 07:14 AM
|
|
oh and about the op even with a gun, you are still a 'victim', the crime just has the word 'attempted' placed in front I think its ingenuous to describe the pov as that of supporting being a victim as a means of self defense its more about what TYPE of victim is better,, one in which there is a defendant and plaintiff left to live another day or one where someone dies unnecessarily,,,, The meaning remains the same. If you stop your attacker you have stopped your victimization. If you prevent your rape you have stopped the victimization. If you prevent your murder you have prevented your victimization. You can play with the word all you want, but being unable to stop the crime is not a solution and THAT is what the OP is about. Leaders who are tasked with reducing crime that tell you to just do nothing to protect yourself are not doing there job. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Thu 03/08/12 07:24 AM
|
|
I personally believe it means next to nothing, but Im just showing how to pull random sampling and numbers and use them to seem to s upport one side or the other I dont really think its all about having more gun restriction or less, its more about the culture (which can vary from region to region and state to state) in which those restrictions occur,,, The problem with what you posted is that you are talking apples to oranges. You need to make the comparison apples to apples. In states where CCW permits are made "shall issue", you can watch the crime statistics drop like a rock. This is significant, because you have a before / after scenario, instead of comparing two states with different demographics, geography, education levels, poverty levels, etc. By doing a before / after study on a state, you are comparing apples to apples and the statistics are meaningful. |
|
|