D.C. Politician tells Citizens being a Victim is better than owning guns

[TheodoreWaters]

So much for the second ammendment,




Off Grid Survival 3-13-2012
D.C. Politician tells Citizens being a Victim is better than allowing citizens to Own Guns.






It seems some anti-gun politicians would rather see law-abiding citizens become victims of crime than allow them to legally owning a gun.
Yep, you read that right.

In a story right out of Bizarro World…. Opps, Sorry – In a story from our our Nations Capitol, where violent crime is up over 40% in the first two months of this year, there are some in the government who say being a victim is better than being able to defend yourself.
And again, YES YOU READ THAT RIGHT!

With violent crime left virtually unchecked, Washington D.C. Residents are looking for ways to protect themselves. Washington D.C. is a notoriously Anti-Gun city with some of the country’s most oppressive firearms laws. In fact, the loopholes and regulations in D.C. make it almost impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a gun.

In a meeting that was open to the public last week, D.C. residents showed up to ask Council members why the city makes it so difficult for law-abiding residents to register guns. They also wanted to know why the city refuses to allow them to carry weapons outside of their homes.

The City’s response:

Paul Quander, the District’s deputy mayor for public safety and justice, told the crowd that “crime victims should give the criminals what they want.â€

He then went on to tell them how becoming a victim is preferable to self-defense. “The problem is, if you are armed, it escalates the situation,†“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.â€

Another D.C. Councilman Jack Evans commented…. “Although none of us like making it easier for someone to have a gun legally, we believe that this iswhat we have to do.â€

 

[Foxlike]

I wouldn't worry about that mate. We had some fairly good riots here in the UK last year, and the enquiries into how they were handled is coming out. One of the little gems is this;

The Met's [London Metropolitan Police] strategic review into its handling of the riots reveals that commanders twice considered using baton rounds, also referred to as attenuated energy projectiles.

On the second night of riots, when trouble broke out in Enfield and Brixton, senior officers decided against using plastic bullets, fearing that doing so could "raise the level of retaliation of the crowd thus increasing the likelihood of individuals, with the capacity to do so, arming themselves with firearms", the report says.

Metropolitan police boost baton rounds capacity after English riots | UK news | The Guardian

So that means that the police (who are routinely unarmed in this country) understand that the criminal element are able to quickly acquire firearms with relative ease, and that the senior management would rather expose the law abiding public and their junior officers to assault (including petrol bombs) rather than use less-lethal weapons.

Rather begs the question why we have all those tooled up armed reponse vehicles wizzing around London. doesn't it?

But just remember, they're ready to protect the Olympics. So that's ok......