The Washington Post editorial today is predictably shrill, calling the ruling “radical” and “dangerous.”

Notably, it’s utterly lacking in any evidence to support the claim that lax gun control laws result in more gun-related crime. Thing is, even wealthy neighborhoods in D.C. have more gun crime than urban areas across the river in Virginia, where it’s relatively easy to own a gun. And 25 years of a D.C. gun ban hasn’t done a damn thing to reduce violence in the city. It remains one of the most violent cities in the country, though it’s down from leading the country in that category, as it did through much of the 1990s (also while the gun ban was in play).

I particularly like this line from the Post editorial:

According to its myth, only criminals have had guns in the city and now law-abiding citizens will be able to arm themselves for protection.

Um, isn’t this “myth” true on its face? If guns are banned in the city, everyone in the city who owns a gun is a criminal. And if this ruling stands, law-abiding citizens would now be able to arm themselves for protection.

The rest of the editorial reads the same, with sweeping statements like, “more guns mean only more violence,” without any attempt to justify them with actual research or evidence.

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 10th, 2007 at 8:06 am by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.