Some have argued that guns should be banned because the state will provide adequate protection of the citizenry. A brief filed in the Supreme Court case regarding the DC gun ban makes a compelling argument against state protection.

The four core empirical subparts of the brief are titled: “The MPD Has A Significant Problem Hiring And Retaining Qualified Police Officers.” “The MPD Has A Significant History Of Mismanagement.” “The District’s ‘911 System Is A Joke’.” and “The MPD Has A Significant History Of Corruption.” Every one of these points is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, relying almost entirely on reports in Washington newspapers.

Moreover, although paying for security, through a private security guard firm, is still legal in DC, the MPD controls the licensing of security guards, and works hard to suppress the private security business through licensing abuse, and by prosecuting security guards on specious charges.

The brief then points out that the DC government enjoys civil immunity from persons who are injured because the MPD’s non-feasance, even when persons were injured because they relied on false promises from DC 911 operators that help was on the way.

Its unbelievable that a city government could have the power to take a way the most obvious option in self defense and then fail to provide adequate protection. Of course this is to be expected. Since the state has monopoly on protection there is no competition forcing them to be efficient. Why people argue on behalf of the government to give the state a monopoly is always beyond me. It seems to violate the most fundamental of common sense. To honestly think you can trust the state more than a company is borderline laughable.

This entry was posted on Monday, February 11th, 2008 at 11:06 am and is filed under Gun Control. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.