Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Gray: Shooting Renews Need For D.C. Gun Control Laws

D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) said today's shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum unfortunately highlights the need for the District to fight for its gun control laws.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) announced yesterday that Congressional leaders were giving up efforts to get a D.C. voting rights bill approved because city leaders would not accept an amendment that would do away with the District's gun-control laws.

Gray said the city, as the nation's capitol, can draw armed extremists and "makes people uniquely vulnerable."

"It's hard for me to realize why anyone would want to make this an easier place to have guns," Gray said. "If anything, it should be more secure."

By Nikita R Stewart  |  June 10, 2009; 4:00 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Survey: D.C. Kids Want To Graduate
Next: Brown, Evans Push For Public's Help to Build Hotel

Comments

What an idiot! Doesn't Gray realize our already oppressive gun laws didn't do anything to stop this madman. Maybe if we had the same gun laws as Virgina an armed citizen may have been able to stop this guy before he shot anyone.

Posted by: CapitolHill1 | June 10, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Tasteless

Posted by: DCGuy4 | June 10, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Cripes, Gray couldn't wait even a day before trying to make political hay and personal gain out of this tragedy. What a schmuck.

And as mentioned, no amount of gun control would have stopped this, but hey who needs logic and facts.

Posted by: Tmoney02 | June 10, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Well, an armed security guard WAS present, and he died for his efforts.

I personally don't think that anyone should expect civilians (even armed civilians) to put themselves in harm's way. I personally think that this only real solution is really strict gun laws nationwide.

Posted by: tm7333 | June 10, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Some pretty bad logic there.

He died yes, but also prevented many more deaths. Him not having a gun wouldn't have changed anything, other than more people dying. He still sadly would have been the first target, with many more following.

Also no one is "expecting" civilians to put themselves in harms way. Only those who choose to carry and are trained and registered and volunteer at that moment. Again civilians were in harms way guns or no guns.

Gun control only works if everyone follows the law. Let me know when everyone follows any law.

Posted by: Tmoney02 | June 10, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I think the security guard should have been armed. I think he did his job and he died for it.

I just don't think it should be so easy for ordinary "civilians" to be armed. There is no law that is universally obeyed. That is why we have police.

Posted by: tm7333 | June 10, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I've honestly never heard such idiocy in my entire life and I've been around for a while ! LOL

The guy came in with a RIFLE! What are you going to propose now, banning HUNTING rifles? I am so shocked by this stupidity that I'm having trouble even typing this in !

Posted by: gjdagis | June 10, 2009 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Yes, a crazed white supremacist who thinks Jews control the universe is going to be stopped by a gun control law. Who is so stupid to believe this? How can anybody say something so ridiculous with a straight face?

Posted by: benminer | June 10, 2009 9:51 PM | Report abuse

What a cynical exploitation of a tragedy. Disgusting.

Posted by: gbooksdc | June 10, 2009 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Good for Vincent Gray. Look folks, if it is legal to carry a firearm-even a small one in the District-law enforcement officials and the public don't have the option of picking up nut cases like this guy BEFORE he gets to the door of a museum. It would also mean there are potentially a lot more nut cases with guns walking around the streets of my city, some of whom have them simply because they falsely believe they provide protection against other nut cases who are allowed to have guns.

Posted by: dkimball1 | June 11, 2009 6:07 AM | Report abuse

We need strict enforceable gun control laws. There is a related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?p=1669

Posted by: carlyt | June 11, 2009 8:09 AM | Report abuse

My initial reaction to Gray was similar to many here: Gun control laws would not have prevented this. But benminer made a good point. Was this known crazed white supremacist who thinks Jews control the universe, and who had a criminal record and was sentenced to jail time for a similar incident, allowed to legally purchase and own the weapon he used yesterday? If so maybe the laws that allowed that to happen should be revisited.

Obviously such a man as this would likely try to break such a law, but it seems silly to argue against having laws because people will break them anyway.

Posted by: heydiaz | June 11, 2009 8:29 AM | Report abuse

dkimball,

It IS illegal to carry ANY gun on the streets of DC. Plus, as a convicted felon, it is illegal for Brunn to own ANY gun. Even if the Ensign amendment passed, this would still be the case.

Please name me ONE new gun law you would like to see passed that would have prevented this tragedy.

Posted by: DCGuy4 | June 11, 2009 8:43 AM | Report abuse

The man who did the shooting was a convicted felon. Just by holding a firearm he was automatically guilty of a serious felony that could have earned him at least 5 years in prison - this is under an existing law that has been on the books since 1968.

Posted by: Nugrecords | June 11, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse


Yes-I am a Democrat. We know what is best for you.

My video explains it all. Please watch and and help my profession.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER8Ieop6_Jc

Posted by: Namakan | June 11, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company