Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Norton Focuses on Mass Shootings to Lobby Against Gun Rider

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) isn't missing the opportunity, with the recent news of a number of mass shootings, to push back against a gun amendment attached to the D.C. vote legislation.

Norton offered condolences to the families of the victims this weekend, including three police officers fatally shot Saturday and 13 shot to death Friday.

"In only the 25 days between March 10 and April 5, 53 people have been killed in mass murders by gunmen," a statement from her office said.

"The bill would eliminate all local gun laws, making the city, including official Washington, more open to gun violence than any of the jurisdictions where the mass killings have occurred in March and April," according to the statement.

Norton is scheduled to appear on WUSA TV, channel 9, at 9 a.m. this morning.

By Marcia Davis  |  April 6, 2009; 7:22 AM ET
Categories:  Voting Rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Council Says No More (Unqualified) Friends
Next: DC Fire/EMS Wants to Be Your Friend on Facebook


Norton has issued a statement to Congress, claiming "Killings Like Those This Weekend Could Come to D.C. Unless the Gun Amendment is Eliminated from the Voting Rights Bill."

I sympathize with Norton's concern over violence. But with the statement above, who is she trying to fool? Despite having the toughest gun control in the nation, DC usually leads the nation in homicides. Killings "have come" to DC despite having an utter ban on handguns for over 30 years! There is no gun ban that could be enacted that will prevent a deranged person from killing multiple people.

Norton's statement is completely illogical. When will she and those like her finally learn that gun control does not equate to crime control?

Posted by: ambiguae | April 6, 2009 9:23 AM | Report abuse

You have to look at the united states as a whole. The US has more guns and more gun crime than any other country on earth. More guns does not mean less crime and everyone knows the since a lot of states have such weak gun control a lot of the DC guns come from outside DC. The solution is national bans on handguns and assault weapons.

Posted by: nivbri21 | April 6, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

The mass killings are aleready here. Gangs and drug dealers routinely kill innocent people in this city. How can Del. Norton make such a silly press statement.

Mass killers probably look at how easy it is for DC gangs to kill and get away with it, that it inspires them to try it in their own town.

Maybe Del. Norton should work on cleaning up the mess that has ruined DC over her 30+ years as an elected official and not make brash and "wanna be" prophetic statements.

Eleanor Holmes Norton WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR DC IN 30 YEARS? Nothing. It's a shame you are such a flop as a leader.

Posted by: jpeltdc | April 6, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Del Norton doesn't respect the value of an individuals life & the right to protect it. This person and others of the same mindlessness retorical bable mindset, can not & nor do they, guarantee the citizens personal saftey against criminal violence against their person by being armed. The State does not let it self be held personaly accountable, or they would be able to be sued for failure to protect it's citizins. Why is it historicaly experienced that, tryantical governments, seek to eliminate, freedom of religion, speech, & the right to own arms??? This has been, sadly the direction of America for quite some time.

Posted by: heywheresmycardboard | April 6, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Why DC residents continue to elect her, I have no idea. When she can GUARANTEE that I would be safe and the police will always protect me 0ne Hundred percent of the time, I will cease and lay dormant my right and practice to own firearms.

It ain't going to happen. Because she CANNOT guarantee it. Sorry old lady, you have no viable plan for decreasing violence in DC. Step down and go to an old folks home, you are wholly ineffective at representing the TRUE will of DC citizens. You only push your own agenda. Folks see through you like a ragged hole through a goose.

Posted by: willtill | April 6, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: nivbri21 | April 6, 2009 9:49 AM "The solution is national bans on handguns and assault weapons."

That's your solution? Oh, this should be interesting. First, know that assault weapons are already banned. So what will a national ban on guns do, exactly? Make them all disappear? Surely you are not serious. There are 280 million guns in the US alone. Would you have police go door to door to search-and-seize these guns? Would you volunteer for the job? I can only guess that a few of those gun owners would not be so happy to have their rights physically stripped like that. And remember, they own guns, and their constitution has guaranteed them the government won't take them away. Do you forget what sparked the American revolution? Governmental gun bans and seizures, that's what.

Also, consider that many who would be happy to destroy the second amendment very much value the fourth. Or, do you just expect people to all walk down to the police station, like good little sheep, and simply give their guns to the government? Also, we have porous borders. People can make guns and ammo.

Think about it. Your solution is just unworkable. It would be like trying to ban fire, or levers, or some other simple and very useful technology. National ban on guns! Good grief. Come back to earth and try to come up with a solution that has some basis in reality.

Posted by: ambiguae | April 6, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

ALL polipigs are LIARS, THIEVES, and CROOKS. That's a fact, Dems and Repugs alike, but....the Norton bytch as done NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for DC EVER. The lowest life 'ho in SE is more honorable than this evolutionary reject. I don't think norton's IQ would match her age.

Posted by: PercyKution | April 6, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Increasing gun control has never been proven to stop gun violence; nor has increasing the number gun owners been proven to reduce violent crime. Therefore, increasing or decreasing laws in relation to handguns and assault weapons specifically will make no difference.
The cat is out of the bag on this one; we know about guns, they are going to be used for good or for ill. The guns aren't going away no matter how many laws are made against them.
The violence (gun or no) very, very closely correlates with poverty. That is what Eleanor Norton should be focused on if she wants to reduce gun violence, crime, and other types of violence.

Posted by: vancea | April 6, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

America is a sociopathic nation. The man who murders his children because his wife's leaving him has no conscience. The man who whines that Obama will take his guns away, which in his case sounds okay to me, sociopathically voices his protest by killing three police officers. Sociopath Larry Summers takes money hand over fist from Goldman, Sachs, runs a hedge fund, then tries to imitate a public servant, out to get those greedy big money people, of which he is one. Then there's Bush/Cheney which is a pure case study of sociopathic leadership. Let's face it, America can't look into a mirror anymore. The face looking back has little human feeling left. Let's give it a gun.

Posted by: curtb | April 6, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

If you look at all these shootings, you'll see that they all had one thing in common: the murderer was the only person armed.

Gun free zones don't work. You would think with all the shootings in DC that Norton would realize this. The only time that a shooting occurred at a place where people were armed (Fairfax county police sub-station), the shooting ended quickly and with minimal loss of life.

Posted by: ahashburn | April 6, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Get outside the political blather, and most sane people can agree that there is no point to automatic or semiautomatic rifles with magazine capacities greater than 10 rounds except to shoot lots of people in a very short period of time. Stop these weapons from reaching the streets and the ability for disturbed individuals to commit mass murder precipitously.

No handgun law is going to stop drug-related killings in D.C. or elsewhere any time soon, but they just might cut down on the rest.

Posted by: fwiw_in_NoVa | April 6, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse


There are already laws against felons having guns and against guns being used in the commision of crimes. Does this stop felons and other criminals from using guns? Of course not! People like you insist on forgetting that a criminal, by his very nature doesn not abide by any laws. What makes you think that one more law will deter them?

What we need is for softee judges and city councils to put teeth and jailtime into the laws and actually punish criminals for misusing firearms. Use a gun in a crime, go to jail, do not pass go and no parole until the sentence is fully served!

Posted by: wildfyre99 | April 6, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Does Del. Norton think that the guns that kill hundreds in the District are all registered and legal? She, and any others demanding bans on firearms need to get real and accept that very few "legal" guns are used in D.C. shootings - or in any other city. It's so obvious as to be rediculous to keep saying guns don't kill people, people kill people. But it happens to be true. Furthermore, if a few decent citizens had been armed maybe some of the mass killings we lament might have turned out differently.

Posted by: ddnfla | April 6, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

I bet you all blame your pen for you horrible spelling and your spoon for you fat ass!!

Posted by: claytonthomas45 | April 6, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

We should ban stupid politicians they kill far more people than guns.

Posted by: askgees | April 6, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

You have to look at the united states as a whole. The US has more guns and more gun crime than any other country on earth. More guns does not mean less crime and everyone knows the since a lot of states have such weak gun control a lot of the DC guns come from outside DC. The solution is national bans on handguns and assault weapons.

Posted by: nivbri21 | April 6, 2009 9:49 AM

Followed by a ban on free speach. At least we won't have read anymore stupid comments from you. LOL. Only a pu$$y would give up his/her rights because of fear.

Posted by: askgees | April 6, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

A article indicates that between 1990 and 2006, the NRA organization doled out $16 million in campaign contributions,83 percent to Republicans. The NRA's millions also go for campaign television and billboard advertising. Big lobby for guns, guns, guns, any kind of guns and anything you want to do with 'em.

For example, the "Assault Weapons Ban" (why would anyone want to defend the right to own an ASSAULT weapon?) passed in 1994 under Clinton and expired in 2004 under Bush. This bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons for civilian use. The majority of Democrats voted for it, and the majority of Republicans voted against it.

While most countries require the registration of firearms and permit handgun ownership, many ban certain kinds of weapons. BUT the US tops the rate of gun ownership and there is a correspondingly high gun homicide rate.

What cynical, jaded creature relaxes gun control in DC? Eleanor Holmes Norton has fought long and hard for the right for her distict to vote. If there is pay-back karma in this world, may those who inserted this rider pay hard for it.

Posted by: kathryn_poethig | April 6, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

...most sane people can agree that there is no point to automatic or semiautomatic rifles with magazine capacities greater than 10 rounds except to shoot lots of people in a very short period of time. Stop these weapons from reaching the streets and the ability for disturbed individuals to commit mass murder precipitously.

Posted by: fwiw_in_NoVa

While I agree with you in principle, the reality is that you cannot find the proper balance in making these distinctions. If you are limited by the law from carrying more than a 6-round wheel gun, what use will it be against a home invader armed with a MAC-10? For years the police in many jurisdictions were hampered in a similar fashion, carrying something like a S & W Model 10 .38 when the bad guys were carrying .45 and 10mm semi-automatics with 15-round clips. The cops got smart. Are homeowners any less vulnerable to being outgunned?

Lets be fair about this. The Second Amendment is not about protecting the rights of hunters and target shooters. It is about the right to protect yourself, your family, and your property. Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Posted by: hisroc | April 6, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Del Norton: You are not capable of participating in a reasonable discussion. Your gun grabbing rhetoric is falling on deaf ears. Scream louder and proclaim more falsehoods; you are your own worst enemy. When people see the foul way you distort facts to further your agenda; it only emboldens them to be your enemy. You are a racist to your own people. DC is majority black and you won't allow law-abiding blacks to own firearms as easily as law abiding whites and blacks do in Virginia.
Yeah, you really serve to advance your people's freedoms; not. Really, You are a tyrant that would like to think and make all decisions for your constituents because you think that they cannot think and make moral and ethical decisions on their own. You are a joke and a disgrace to every hard working law abiding DC resident.

Posted by: civilrightist | April 6, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

For example, the "Assault Weapons Ban" (why would anyone want to defend the right to own an ASSAULT weapon?) passed in 1994 under Clinton ...

What cynical, jaded creature relaxes gun control in DC?

Posted by: kathryn_poethig | April 6, 2009 5:37 PM

Dear Kathryn:
Just for the sake of discussion, can you define or describe an "assault weapon" for us? That you capitalized ASSAULT makes me wonder if you know. Once you define what they are, let's pretend they are called "Family Safety Tools." Does the name change what they are? Does the name change the appeal (or repulsion) of the object?

Also, I don't know if you believe that the second amendment protects the right of individual people to own and carry guns, or if you believe it protects the "right" of the states to form militias.

Assume for a minute you believe it protects an individual right. Given that, can you articulate here why you have a right to own guns? Not why you might own one, but why you have the right to. In other words, can you describe why your right to own guns is protected by law (or more precisely, why the government is forbidden by law from infringing your right)?

Also, what optimistic and invigorated creature would restore fundamental civil rights to the residents of DC? Remember that civil rights protect individuals from the government and state power.

Posted by: ambiguae | April 6, 2009 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Dear Kathryn,

I will give you a hint:

The answer to your question - "why would anyone want to defend the right to own an assault weapon?" lies in the correct answer to my question - "can you describe why your right to own guns is protected by law?"

Posted by: ambiguae | April 6, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it ironic that Rep. Norton doesn't seem to express sympathy.. oohh hell let's be honest, even express concern over the exisiting gun violence that has claimed 10 times as many victims as seen in the last 25 days nationwide. Rep. Norton should examine the numbers related to her own city as to how gun control DIDN'T WORK for over 30 years in DC. Almost every year of DC's "EFFECTIVE" gun control, DC either lead the nation or was usually in the top 3 in gun related homicides. Yet somehow if the DC goverment can't enact draconian gun control laws, it's going to lead to mass gun related murders and bloodshed. With all due respect to Rep. Norton and her fellow gun control advocates... WHAT THE HELL DO YOU CALL THE LAST 30 YEARS IN DC UNDER YOUR GUN CONTROL LAWS?!?!

Posted by: MP5N | April 7, 2009 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Man with Knife kills family headline overshadowed by GUNS KILL.

If they don't have a gun they will use poison, kitchen knives, drown kids in a bathtub or tie them down in car seats and run the car into a lake.

Violence happens! Forty Thousand people will be killed in the family car this year; BAN CARS!

Ten to one Eleanor Holmes Norton has a gun or paid gun toting protector wherever she goes.

Posted by: ddoiron1 | April 7, 2009 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Let's hope that this issue resolves itself. We as a people need to try to help revent this in any way possible. Check out and see what they are doing to help this situation

Posted by: bonafidemusic | April 7, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

A DC resident CANNOT go to another state and buy a firearm banned in DC. The federal gun laws require that a licensed dealer verify the purchase is legal in buyer's state. Private gun sales MUST go through a licensed dealer in the buyer's state. That dealer is responsible for making all local laws are met. Penalty is 10 years federal prison for violating these laws.

Posted by: leopard_colony | April 7, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Gun laws have no effect on crime, good or bad. I've plotted the Brady grading of gun laws against the FBI violent crime rate for the same state. There is NO CORRELATION. See this web site for details:

Posted by: leopard_colony | April 7, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

A couple of comments compared the US to other nations and concluded that more guns mean more crime. On the contrary, DC has the most harsh gun laws ever and the highest crime rate (4.2 murders per 100,000) while cities like Sandy and Orem, Utah have the most relaxed gun laws ever and experience the lowest crime rate (1.1 murders per 100,000)

Posted by: rusty238 | April 8, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

These mass shootings show gun control in America has gone way too far.

The problem in mass killings is that the shooter has guns but nobody else has guns. This is because they are all law abiding people and are scared by the liberal media and criminally evil gun control advocates.

The solution is to recognize the absolute right of adults of adequate mental stability and good moral character to bear arms.

It is also important to make concealed carry permits as easy to get as driver's licenses so that those who choose to carry guns don't upset the liberals who don't like guns.

Also, laws restricting weapons from any and all places where there is not continuous on site armed security in adequate force to prevent mass shootings need to be repealed. E. g. arm teachers and school administrators to protect their pupils.

Gun control is an abject failure and no sane person who examines the actual facts can now believe it will turn out otherwise. Gun control advocates need to face justice as accessories before, during and after the fact in all gun crimes in jurisdictions with strong gun control laws.

Posted by: andycutler | April 8, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

It is falsely asserted by one comemnter that "The US has more guns and more gun crime than any other country on earth."

Switzerland is far ahead of the US in guns and their accessibility. Every man between 16 and 56 MUST keep his military weapon and plenty of ammunition immediately to hand at all times. Most Swiss households have an assault rifle or machine gun in the hall closet - some have antiaircraft or antitank missiles instead.

The gun crime rate in Switzerland is very low.

The problem in the US is too few guns, not too many.

Posted by: andycutler | April 8, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Instead of blaming guns, why don't you put the blame on the people doing the shooting. There's lots of trust worthy Gun owners. Enforce the gun laws we have, any crime committed with a gun gets a stiffer sentence, make it harder to buy a gun, weed out the idiots then. Bring back the Death Sentence for murder.

Posted by: gatorsn09 | April 8, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"The US has more guns and more gun crime than any other country on earth."

Let's look at that for a minute. If gun ownership = more crime then why is the US ONLY NUMBER 24 for murders????? Yet we are number 1 for gun ownership. Sounds like the gun ban lobby needs to go back to school and take math courses over.

Speaking of math... Pelosi claims 2000 firearms a day are being captured at the Mexican border. That's 730,000 firearms a year. Or 5.6 per minute of a business day. That is almost all the firearms made in the this country!!!!! Those of you who believe Pelosi please email me, I have a special offer for you to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.

Posted by: leopard_colony | April 8, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Almost all mass killings fall into one of two categories. About 60% are persons with obvious but untreated mental illness. Those people have planned the mass killing well ahead. That means they have time to work around gun bans, in fact many have bombs as well as firearms. About 40% are law enforcement people who go postal, unplanned and unprepared.

In neither case will gun laws do any good. For example in Iraq more people are killed at one time by a single bomb than all the killings combined in the past month!

See my web site for details, I will add the recent killings to the data shortly:

Posted by: leopard_colony | April 8, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company