Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
D.C.'s Crime Problem
When it comes to sacrificing civil liberties in the name of fighting crime, Washington D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and his administration are full of innovative ideas. Among them:
• Giving police officers bigger, badder guns.
• Sending officers door to door requesting to conduct "voluntary" gun and drug searches of citizens' homes.
• Cordoning off portions of the city with almost certainly unconstitutional checkpoints requiring citizens to tell the police where they came from, where they're going, and what their business is in that particular neighborhood. The Washington Post reports that motorists refusing to answer questions or to submit to requested searches of their cars risk arrest.
Ah, but there's one crime-fighting idea Fenty adamantly opposes: letting law-abiding D.C. residents own a gun for self-protection. Seems that only the government can be trusted to protect you from crime. Except, of course, when it doesn't.
It's interesting that crime-fighting ideas requiring the citizenry to give up some of its freedoms are "innovative," while proposals that would give some freedom back are "dangerous."
|6.6.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Washington D.C. is the third-world dictatorship of
America.
Who would ever live in that fuckhole? I was there for one day once,
and I almost committed suicide by cop.
J|6.6.08 @ 1:26PM|#
They really want to become exactly like what most people imagine a dystopian police state to be.
|6.6.08 @ 1:27PM|#
"""Seems that only the government can be trusted to protect you
from crime. """"
Of course! Protecting yourself requires tools that no dictator was
the citizenry to have. Besides, you must be a victim and daddy
government must be the savior. They are already coming up with a
registry for first responders so they will know who should have
access to disaster areas. You're not suppose to save your fellow
man, that's daddy government' s job.
And if government didn't save you, it's only because it's not big
enough and need more tax dollars.
What a joke.
drawnasunder|6.6.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Those checkpoints aren't really going to happen, are they? That's just an idea that's been floated, right? There's no way that can possibly happen, right. Cuz that would be totally fucking nuts, and unconstitutional, and would be possibly the most outwardly totalitarian thing that the police could start doing. Right?
|6.6.08 @ 1:36PM|#
You know, other than sympathy and outrage for the resident's
lost liberties, I would have very little to say about this given
the whole "each state an experiment"* thing except this is DC, home
of the overreaching and overbearing Federal Government. I don't
want the Fed to get anymore ideas on ways to "help" the populace
than they already have.
*I can never remember the proper phrase for this but y'all know
what I mean.
|6.6.08 @ 1:38PM|#
drawnasunder,
It looks like. I suspect the ACLU is waiting for it to actually
occur so they actually have a grievance to pursue in court.
|6.6.08 @ 1:42PM|#
*I can never remember the proper phrase for this but y'all
know what I mean.
Thousand Points of Light?
Paul|6.6.08 @ 1:47PM|#
ideas requiring the citizenry to give up some of its freedoms are "innovative," while proposals that would give some freedom back are "dangerous."
Funny, they also called those crazy, interest only mortgage loans
in the late nineties 'innovative'. Wonder how many people
discovered they were 'dangerous'?
*I can never remember the proper phrase for this but y'all know
what I mean.
Laboratories of Democracy, I believe.
|6.6.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Certainly, legalizing gun ownership will help and even it it
didn't it is a civil right anyway. But that said, DC has an
horrific crime problem. As big of a gun supporter as I am, even I
can't pretend that legalizing guns is going to completely solve the
problem. The DC government has a duty to protect their citizens.
Yes, these are extreme and undesirable measures. But, Libertarians,
if they are going to be taken seriously, have to come up with
alternative solution. Yes, ending drug prohibition is one
alternative, but that is not available. The DC government can't
legalize drugs and since they are illegal everyone else in the
country, ignoring them will just let the criminal element that
sells them run even more wild.
There was a really good article in one of the LA papers last year
on the reality of life in South Central LA. It is worse than
Baghdad there. Absolutely embarrassing that Americans live like
that. No one ever does a damn thing about it. Public safety is one
of the basic duties of the state. Our state is failing miserably at
this duty in many areas.
I don't like these policies either, but it is easy for me to get
all hot and bothered about it I don't live down there and the crime
there never effects me. If not these measures, then what? Are we
just going to continue to let generations of people live in terror
in our inner cities? Further, given state and local governments'
powerlessness to legalize drugs and de-fund the gangs, what are
they supposed to do in the meantime to protect their citizens and
maintain some semblance of law and order?
Dormouse|6.6.08 @ 1:47PM|#
I was there on vacation a couple of weeks ago. I had no problems with criminals or cops. Although, the Secret Service guy at the White House was the smuggest, most patronizing bastard you could imagine. That must mean something, but I don't know what.
PC|6.6.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Will Reason be issuing proper documents for us to carry on our way to the next Reason Happy Hour?
Rimfax|6.6.08 @ 1:55PM|#
What a bunch of pussies! Why not just go for a 30-06 or a Mosin Nagant?
From the WP article on the 7.62x54mmR round used
in the latter weapon:
"[T]his cartridge is even considered a bit too powerful for moose.
PC|6.6.08 @ 1:59PM|#
Guy Montag | June 6, 2008, 1:51pm | #
Wrong use of words. Just documents to gain admittance into their
sector of DC. You should still have time to cancel your new
subscription.
The worst thing about Darth Fenty's new plan is there are so many
transplants in DC I really wonder how many have a driver's license
with their home address.
|6.6.08 @ 2:00PM|#
I don't like these policies either, but it is easy for me to
get all hot and bothered about it I don't live down there and the
crime there never effects me.
I don't know why it should matter at all whether you live there or
how high the crime rate is or isn't.
Rights are rights. So you want to talk about getting innovative
fine, but you have to be innovative within the legal framework of
this country and any innovations must be Constitutional and not
encroach on the rights of the citizens.
I don't remember the high crime rate exception to rights of the out
citizens that would allow theser types of checkpoints or random
door to door searches (voluntary my ass -- cops showing up at your
door telling you you should let them search your home is a bit
coercive in my book).
And don't even get me started with the slippery slope argument. If
DC is allowed to do this, then every big city mayor will try and do
this.
|6.6.08 @ 2:02PM|#
there are so many transplants in DC I really wonder how many
have a driver's license with their home address.
Hmmm- you may be on to something...
Guy Montag|6.6.08 @ 2:04PM|#
Now my proposal to make all of the bridges between DC and VA one way (into DC) is looking even better. Getting them to sever the METRO lines may be a little tougher.
|6.6.08 @ 2:07PM|#
"Rights are rights. So you want to talk about getting innovative
fine, but you have to be innovative within the legal framework of
this country and any innovations must be Constitutional and not
encroach on the rights of the citizens."
Fair enough Tom. But you better be able to come up with some way to
protect people's safety while not trampling on their rights,
because most people are not willing to die rather than give up
their rights. You can't sit around with your head up your ass
saying "well I guess we are just going to have to live with an
outragous murder and crime rate to keep our rights" because people
won't tolerate it. We better start thinking of how we are going to
tackle these issues because this is not going to go on like this
forever. People are going to solve the problems in ways that really
suck if there are no alternative sollutions presented, but the
problem will be solved.
Naga Sadow|6.6.08 @ 2:10PM|#
I foresee a railroad. An "underground" railroad.
*scratches D.C. off list of places to visit*
Other Matt|6.6.08 @ 2:22PM|#
You can't sit around with your head up your ass saying "well
I guess we are just going to have to live with an outragous murder
and crime rate to keep our rights" because people won't tolerate
it.
You're assuming two things in error. First, you're assuming that
this will solve things. This is kind of a nonsensical assumption,
given the number of things which have not worked yet (making
firearms illegal...making drugs illegal...making assault and murder
illegal...etc). Second, you're assuming for some strange reason
that crimes committed by govt are somehow "safety" while crimes
committed by these residents are not. Balko has been doing way too
good of a job showing us that the term "criminals" is not
necessarily limited to people not employed by the govt.
I would therefore submit your argument is logically flawed, and
stems from the same kind of emotional reasoning causing DC to take
these kind of actions in the first place, instead of looking at
cultural issues such as "stop snitchin", etc.
|6.6.08 @ 2:25PM|#
I don't think the problem I have with giving cops too much power
is really about criminal rights, but about how they will abuse that
power by harassing/hurting/killing the innocent.
If no cop ever intentionally fucked with an innocent person to
shake them down and could actually be counted on to arrest/punish
criminals who actually harm other people's person or property, then
they could ride around in 10 story anime battlesuits for all I
care.
Giving a group of people with little accountability and an
extremely poor track record of wisely using the power they already
have even more power is foolish.
Pouring-gasoline-on-a-fire-in-order-to-put-it-out level
foolish.
|6.6.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Fair enough Tom. But you better be able to come up with some
way to protect people's safety while not trampling on their rights,
because most people are not willing to die rather than give up
their rights. You can't sit around with your head up your ass
saying "well I guess we are just going to have to live with an
outragous murder and crime rate to keep our rights" because people
won't tolerate it. We better start thinking of how we are going to
tackle these issues because this is not going to go on like this
forever. People are going to solve the problems in ways that really
suck if there are no alternative sollutions presented, but the
problem will be solved.
John,
as sympathetic as I am to what you are saying, we can not allow
those innovations to turn areas into police states.
Sometimes though, the cost of freedom is high, and I for one am
willing to pay that price. I can move away from high crime areas if
I need to, it's harder to move away from a police state.
Furthermore, alienating the people you are supposedly trying to
protect and treating them like criminals unless they can prove to
you that they aren't seems counterintuitive to me.
Maybe the police force can do things like try to maintain a better
relationship with the residents of their communities, and make sure
that all their officers act in a respectful and professional
manner? Maybe they can make sure that calls to the police are
responded to in a timely manner 100% of the time? This way maybe
residents of their communities will trust the cops and help them
solve crimes and try to work with them instead of living in fear of
criminals and cops?
Here in Chicago, many of people who live in some of the worst parts
of the city don't trust the cops any more then they trust the
criminals. The number of complaints of police brutality have
sky-rocketed in recent years and very few cops ever face real
consequences. That's not the way to foster a positive relationship
with the community you are trying to protect.
Neil|6.6.08 @ 2:28PM|#
The simple solution is to raze the bad neighborhoods and disperse the social misfits that inhabit them. Dilute the problem so to speak.
|6.6.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Does DC have some sort of abnormal population? I doubt it. I don't know much about the particulars of the DC problem, but I doubt that DC is so unique that they can't adopt policies that have been successful in other major metropolitan areas throughout the US.
|6.6.08 @ 2:31PM|#
See, "Neil" has read "The Dark Knight Returns". The character of "Neil", of course, would read the graphic novels of Frank Miller unironically.
|6.6.08 @ 2:33PM|#
I was there on vacation a couple of weeks ago. I had no
problems with criminals or cops.
Of course, the neighborhoods of DC with a serious crime problem are
far away from the part you're going to see on vacation unless you
make a deliberate attempt to visit them.
there are so many transplants in DC I really wonder how many
have a driver's license with their home address.
Yep. I lived there for five years in the 90's and never changed my
Oregon driver's license or car registration -- when I looked into
it it turned out to be too damn expensive and everyone told me
horror stories of dealing with the DC DMV.
Naga Sadow|6.6.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Brilliant deduction Neil/Cesar. Spread the lawlessness around . . . refer to stories involving Katrina refugees from New Orleans.
|6.6.08 @ 2:36PM|#
You are right Tom. These types of things make things worse in
the long run. But make no mistake about it, if you get brutal
enough, you can stop crime. Yeah, the cure is worse than the
disease, but you can stop it.
My point is that Libertarians have got to be more active in coming
up with sollutions and offering an alternative to this kind of
thing. Libralizing the gun laws and letting people protect
themselves is a good start, but there has to be more than that.
Libertarianism can't be synonomous with lawlessness and it doesn't
have to be. I wish I had a good "libertarian" sollution to all of
this. I don't. But, I think that the thinking shouldn't be "we hate
cops they suck". It should instead be "there are a lot better ways
of doing this than what is going on now."
Guy Montag|6.6.08 @ 2:39PM|#
And to where, pray tell, do you disperse these
misfits?
Better not be Arlington, VA. My ammo bill is big enough
already.
Neil|6.6.08 @ 2:43PM|#
And to where, pray tell, do you disperse these
misfits?
They could easily reuse the trail of tears to OK.
Naga Sadow|6.6.08 @ 2:45PM|#
John,
No you can NOT stop crime. In human nature, some just can't play
nice regardless of an overbearing police state. Cuba is pretty
authoritarian and from what I've read, their prisons are full.
|6.6.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Washington D.C. is the third-world dictatorship of
America.
Can it really be a coincidence that this is where Our Masters
live?
I can never remember the proper phrase for this but y'all know
what I mean.
I believe the word you're groping for is "federalism".
[T]his cartridge is even considered a bit too powerful for
moose.
Horse hockey. Its basically a Russian 30-06 round. I have no idea
what "too powerful for moose" even means; dead is dead, no? And
trust me, even a jumped-up 30-06 is at the low end of what you need
to reliably anchor a moose.
You can't sit around with your head up your ass saying "well I
guess we are just going to have to live with an outragous murder
and crime rate to keep our rights" because people won't tolerate
it.
This strikes me as resting on a counterfactual assumption. In
America the correlation between "freedom" and "low crime" seems to
be a positive one, not a negative one.
Neil|6.6.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Don't forget to hand out your special brand of
blankets.
HIV. Keep up with the times dude.
|6.6.08 @ 2:53PM|#
But make no mistake about it, if you get brutal enough, you
can stop crime. Yeah, the cure is worse than the disease, but you
can stop it.
No John, you can't. Unless your solution is to criminalize
everything and lock everyone up. Burn the village to save it so to
speak.
And at what cost does this brutality come? I have relatives who
lived through the Junta in Greece, where there were curfews and
checkpoints and soliders on the streets enforcing strict laws --
all in the name of keeping everyone safe and keeping order.
Crime wasn't eradicated. In fact those tactics turned honest people
into criminals and had many many people locked away for minor
infractions. There were quite a large number who became anarchists
or despised the authorities and undermined them every chance they
get and supported guerilla tactics against them.
I don't consider that to be superior to living in a neighborhood
with a large crime rate.
Fluffy|6.6.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Well, John, since we agree that public safety is the
responsibility of the state [they tax for it, they better provide
it] and if you want "some action" other than checkpoints, here's my
suggestion:
Make a map of the neighborhoods in DC with the highest crime
rates.
In the top X% of those neighborhoods, put two cops in chairs on the
corner 24/7. Not in cars. Not even walking around - we don't want
to tax their little toesies too much. Just in chairs, one facing
each way.
If they see anything suspicious they go check it out.
Do you think that would make the crime rate in those areas go down?
Without resorting to making having access to a public way something
you need to argue a case to justify?
kinnath|6.6.08 @ 2:56PM|#
My point is that Libertarians have got to be more active in
coming up with sollutions and offering an alternative to this kind
of thing.
Yes, ending drug prohibition is one alternative, but
that is not available.
The root cause of the problem is the criminalization of
self-destructive behavior. If you're going to take the only real
solution to the problem off the table, there isn't much point in
discussing other topics.
|6.6.08 @ 2:57PM|#
"I don't consider that to be superior to living in a
neighborhood with a large crime rate."
Neither do I. There is almost no street crime in Saudi Arabia or
Singapore. I wouldn't want to live in either place. But, they both
put lie to the idea that you can't violate people's rights all the
way to public safety, you can. Worse, people will if they are not
presented with better alternatives.
|6.6.08 @ 3:01PM|#
My point is that Libertarians have got to be more active in
coming up with sollutions and offering an alternative to this kind
of thing.
Along the lines of what Fluffy said, what we're missing here as
outsiders is a clear understanding of the law enforcement
methodology that is in place. One can't offer up solutions to a
problem without a clear understanding of both the problem and the
current approaches to the problem. Thus, I think it's unfair to
paint libertarians as non-reactive. Being reactive to totalitarian
police state tactics does not imply being non-reactive to the
problem.
|6.6.08 @ 3:09PM|#
But, they both put lie to the idea that you can't violate
people's rights all the way to public safety, you can.
Is living in fear of your government really an example of "public
safety" ?
To me the answer is NO.
It isn't really a "safe" environment if you can be disappeared for
any reason at any time by the authorities.
You seem to think that living under the gestapo is preferable to
living in a crime ridden neighborhood. To me that's a distinction
without a difference. You are living in fear in both cases.
Except that I can move out of the high crime neighborhoods.
Alice Bowie|6.6.08 @ 3:11PM|#
There should be no Problem with Cops searching ones home...There
should not be anything illegal goin' on anyway.
!!! Keep Dope Alive !!!
kinnath|6.6.08 @ 3:11PM|#
There is almost no street crime in Saudi Arabia or
Singapore. I wouldn't want to live in either place.
Been to Singapore many times. Haven't been to SA, but my guess is
that Singapore is far less authoritarian that SA.
As far as I can tell, the draconian punishments for drug violations
and other high-crimes is not really a driving factor in the fact
that Singapore is an incredibly safe place.
It is far more a result of a mix of Asian culture and a
highly-educated population that is living in a booming economy.
Episiarch|6.6.08 @ 3:16PM|#
John, why is it that NYC can have a far lower crime rate than
DC, yet with a far greater population? It certainly isn't because
they are checkpointing certain neighborhoods (except Sea
Gate!).
The problem in DC is the police and the government.
Naga Sadow|6.6.08 @ 3:16PM|#
God bless you Alice. Your "Keep Dope Alive" comment always brings a smile to my face. Gonna be a good day.
Old Bull Lee|6.6.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Hey, I read Frank Miller unironically. I wouldn't call him
realistic or subtle, but that's his style.
Which weapons the police carry wouldn't bother me so much, but are
they basing this "match for criminals" thing on the criminals in
the Lethal Weapon movies or something?
Naga Sadow|6.6.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Episiarch,
Why is the crime rate lower in NYC? A little somebody called . . .
SERPICO!!!!
Corey|6.6.08 @ 3:17PM|#
I live in ward 5 of DC, just a few blocks north of one of these targeted neighborhoods. I must say that I think the crime rate is overblown. Virtually all of the violence is between rival drug dealers, gangs, or both. I'm not condoning violence by any means, and I think MPD has utterly failed to keep this sort of thing under control, but something outsiders fail to realize is that unless you sell drugs or are a member of a gang, your chances of being a victim of this high level of crime is extremely low. DC is by no means a hellhole (though as I type this, it's 92 degrees and getting hotter).
Alice Bowie|6.6.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Say Yes to Drugs...
And not to all that Bullshit u ear on TV...
!!!! KEEP DOPE ALIVE !!!!
Alice Bowie|6.6.08 @ 3:23PM|#
What made NYC a safer City (it was never very very dangerous in
the 1st place) had a lot to do with the booming economy and the
gentrification.
Many so-called BAD neighborhoods turned desirable in only 10
years.
It's the people moving into NYC that causes people of the lower
class 2 move out....resulting in Lower Street Crime.
Naga Sadow|6.6.08 @ 3:28PM|#
No Serpico like police officers? BAH!!! Bah, I say!!! I stand by my original comment.
Other Matt|6.6.08 @ 3:30PM|#
What made NYC a safer City (it was never very very dangerous
in the 1st place) had a lot to do with the booming economy and the
gentrification.
I thought it was Bloomberg's suing of Virginia firearms
dealers.
|6.6.08 @ 3:32PM|#
The problem wrt "rifles vs. Glocks" is that high velocity 5.56mm
will go through walls in a way that 9mm or even .40 cal
won't.
If they want more firepower rather than more firepower and
more collateral casualties, they should be carrying submachine guns
firing pistol ammo.
I don't think they are more expensive, either.
Episiarch|6.6.08 @ 3:48PM|#
If they want more firepower rather than more firepower and
more collateral casualties, they should be carrying submachine guns
firing pistol ammo.
When they say "more firepower" they actually mean "penetrate body
armor". Submachine guns fail. Think North
Hollywood.
|6.6.08 @ 3:50PM|#
A 5.56mm hasn't got squat for stopping power. And, what good is
a rifle in close combat? Are these "military surplus" rifles full
auto or 3-shot burst?
Semi-automatic sawed-off shotguns for all cops!
|6.6.08 @ 3:51PM|#
why is it that NYC can have a far lower crime rate than DC,
yet with a far greater population?
Well, to be fair to DC, crime rates tend to be exaggerated due to
its very small geographic size. DC essentially contains all of the
region's high-crime neighborhoods but because of DC's small area it
doesn't get to spread those high-crime neighborhood's rates out
over a broader area of lower crime areas like most cities
would.
Imagine, for example, drawing a border around some of NYC's higher
crime neighborhoods and calling that a separate city. Obviously the
rates for that city would be far higher than NYC as a whole.
Conversely, if you could expand DC's borders to include Arlington,
Alexandria, Bethesda, etc. (say, everything inside the Beltway,
which would still be much less area than NYC), it would suddenly
appear to have much lower crime rates than it does now. This
geographically-arbitrary boost in crime rates tends to make DC look
worse than it really is for most people in the city.
Alice Bowie|6.6.08 @ 4:08PM|#
U R right Brian Courts,
DC is basically the 'coloured section' of the entire beltway. If
the belway was included it would be just like nyc.
Fluffy|6.6.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Along the lines of what Fluffy said, what we're missing here
as outsiders is a clear understanding of the law enforcement
methodology that is in place.
My point was also that it's a question of resource
deployment.
To man these checkpoints effectively, they'll have to deploy cops
to the street corners of these areas 24/7. And they'll have to
cover every street corner that provides possible ingress.
I'm just betting that merely putting that many cops on that many
street corners [DC is a grid plus diagonals, so you're talking
about a lot of streets to cover] and just leaving them there
permanently hanging out drinking coffee in LA-Z-Boys would probably
dramatically lower crime. Why do they have to actually start
arresting people who want to walk down the street without giving
them a good enough reason?
Episiarch|6.6.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Why do they have to actually start arresting people who want
to walk down the street without giving them a good enough
reason?
Because it's not about lowering crime, it is about being seen DOING
SOMETHING about crime. Even if that something is unconstitutional
and idiotic.
Guy Montag|6.6.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Episiarch,
Perhaps we need a government study to find a solution to this
problem.
|6.6.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Because it's not about lowering crime, it is about being
seen DOING SOMETHING about crime. Even if that something is
unconstitutional and idiotic.
IMHO, it's also about flexing the muscles of the state and showing
that you must submit or else your a criminal. It's about
controlling the masses.
There are plenty of non-authoritarian ways to "do something" that
would be just as ineffective -- but the powers that be don't really
choose those options
Episiarch|6.6.08 @ 4:32PM|#
ChicagoTom, I agree 100%. I was trying to be less cynical in my post but I really should just stop trying.
|6.6.08 @ 5:14PM|#
I've lived in both D.C. and L.A., and random violent crime is
far more prevalent in L.A. than in D.C. You don't get many
car-jackings in D.C., for one thing, and the criminal element in
D.C. doesn't seem particularly mobile, for another.
Most of the random crime in D.C. occurs in a couple of
'transitional' neighborhoods where million-dollar houses sit a
couple of blocks away from housing projects. In such neighborhoods,
muggings and other thug shit are pretty common, but you don't
really get the truly nasty predator type stuff I recall from L.A.
Apart from that violent crime in D.C. is either gang-related (and
the gangs here are pretty small-time) or the usual
drunk-guy-shoots-girlfriend stuff.
|6.6.08 @ 5:33PM|#
The more I see and hear about it, the more I am convinced that DC is the best example in support of federalism that we could possibly have. If the Feds are unable to achieve baseline normalcy in their own enclave, nevermind utopia, why do we let them prescribe (and proscribe) so much of our behavior and appropriate so much of our property? Clearly, those are resources flushed down the toilet. The Feds are incompetent to run our lives and our economy, and it is well past time that their enterprise be whittled down to its proper size and scope, for the good of all.
Alice Bowie|6.6.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Marion Barry is a Good Guy !
Just because the guy had a few minor infractions
doesn't mean he's not fit for leadership.
|6.6.08 @ 6:17PM|#
Light 5.56 bullets (eg, from 55gr M193 rounds) penetrate
barriers LESS than handgun rounds. They deform and lose velocity in
dense material faster. One of the problems with 5.56 in the
military is that it doesn't penetrate cover like heavy rifle rounds
(eg, .308). The M855 round (which is standard issue for most rifles
and carbines) has a mild steel penetrator which helps some, but
unfortunately it fragments less reliably than M193. There's also
M995 which is officially AP.
As for "stopping power", when 5.56 fragments (which it doesn't
always do), it's VERY damaging. Much more so than any handgun
round.
|6.6.08 @ 7:25PM|#
Washington D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and his administration
are full of innovative ideas.
There is nothing innovative about it - in every Latin American
country, for instance Mexico, the State simply ignores individuals'
rights and sets up useless check points, just so that people
remember they have a government.
Jason|6.7.08 @ 1:10AM|#
Most major political philosophers, e.g. John Locke, believe that the social contract which establishes government transfers the right to self-defense from the individual to the governing body. This transfer ends the "state of war" (or "state of nature") which characterizes pre-civilized life. Naturally, governments do their job very imperfectly, but in most cases they do a better job of keeping the peace than do a mass of armed "citizens." The writer of this article demonstrates a pathetic degree of ignorance about the fundamental justification of the state.
|6.7.08 @ 4:27PM|#
transfers the right to self-defense from the individual to the governing body.
So we shouldn't learn martial arts?
but in most cases they do a better job of keeping the peace than do a mass of armed "citizens.
So it's an either/or? I didn't realize.
db|6.8.08 @ 12:38PM|#
The problem wrt "rifles vs. Glocks" is that high velocity
5.56mm will go through walls in a way that 9mm or even .40 cal
won't.
If they want more firepower rather than more firepower and more
collateral casualties, they should be carrying submachine guns
firing pistol ammo.
Eh, I recall reading some stuff on AR15.com that debunk this. The
55 grain 5.56mm bullet going 3000 fps actually has less penetration
in plasterboad/wood walls than a 9mm fmj at ~1100 fps.
|6.8.08 @ 6:36PM|#
Maybe DC should ban guns within the city, that would stop the shootings! Oh wait, you do ban guns within the city. Don't these criminals know that, how dare they break the law.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245