I Will not Watch the District Again

I recently began watching Craig T. Nelson's new show, "The District," about a Police Commissioner in Washington D.C.
In an epsiode aired recently (as a rerun, though), a consultant to the police gets mugged, and wants to have the Commissioner sign paperwork so that he can have an exception to the gun ban.
Craig won't give him one, and in the end, the friend acts as if getting a gun were a stupid idea in the first place.

Bulls**t.

I firmly believe that some people shouldn't carry guns for defense because they aren't going to use them responsibly, but I believe that we can rely on these people to determine that for themselves. People for whom carrying a gun in self-defense would put them more at risk know who they are and are the best arbiters of whether or not they should carry one.

"The District," however, clearly gave the impression that we should just rely on the police, because letting citizens carry guns is dangerous.

I hope that Congress passes that legislation repealing the stupid Washington, D.C. gun ban.

And I hope that Craig T. Nelson's character gets exposed for the fascist he is. (If he were unwilling because he was afraid of the liability he might incur, that would be one thing, but there was no indication that he disagreed with the stupid DC gun ban in the first place).

That is all.

UPDATE: Greg Cochran disagrees and has some good poitns against John Lott. I guess I will say this: I don't trust the government to tell people they can't have guns. I also do not agree with the idea of many gun rights groups that everyone should be armed, including people who do not wish to be armed. My point about people who hsouldn't carry guns knowing who they are was basically that even if the statistics are true that more gun ownership reduces crime, in the US gun owners are a self-selected group. In other words, we have little to no evidence that forcing people to cary guns has any positive effect (and I would also think that there would be a trend of diminishing returns as more people were armed, as those who most need guns would presumably be among the first to get them), so I have no desire to shame people for not wanting to have guns. Of course, some may argue that letting people who want to carry guns carry them doesn't reduce and m ay increase crime. Cochran seems to suggest that in many cases it has a deleterious effect. I will concede that I haven't studied the issue thoroughly enough (nor have I spent a lot of time on it recently) to make a really effective argument. I tend to think that more freedom is a good thing, but I concede that I don't have the data to back it up, at least not right now.