Another View: There's only one way to stop gun crime: ban handguns

New Hampshire Union Leader ^ | December 28, 2005 | JENNY PRICE

[advance_copy]

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

[tarheelswamprat]

What in the world has happened to the "Union-Leader"? Have they been purchased recently by new left-leaning owners?

[Melas]

Would it have been any consolation if her sister was killed with a baseball bat? If someone wants to kill another human being, there are many ways to accomplish it.

As a gun owner, and a gun rights advocate, I hate that logic. I carry a gun because it is a much better equalizer than a baseball bat or a knife. Rather than refute the deadliness of handguns, we need to laud the deadliness of handguns. A baseball bat isn't a great tool in the hands of a small, frail person, as in this case, an elderly woman.

Firearms would be useless if they didn't provide a level of force to the wielder that transcends the shooters physical abilities. The fact that a .45 slug from my pistol hits just as hard when fired from my hand as it would if a monster of a man like the Rock had fired it, is exactly what makes it useful to me.

[R. Scott]

[Melas]

Ah, but that's the point. Guns stand in the way of the strong preying upon the weak. A pistol is deadly in any hands, which is exactly what makes it useful.

[Monitor]

Yea, but were the Nazi's liberal?

The offical name of the Nazi party is: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party).

So the Nazis were/are left-wing, in spite of today's leftists insisting otherwise.

[jocon307]

"Just ask the Britons how well a handgun ban has worked for them."

And then ask the Aussies.

[wideawake]

Three observations on this article:

(1) We don't know if the author's "brother David" had threatened the woman who shot him.

(2) The author uses bogus statistics: "most murderers own their handguns legally" - an obvious falsehood.

(3) If indeed her "brother David" was murdered by this woman, if the woman had been unable to obtain a handgun, she would have come up with another method.

If she wanted to kill "brother David" so badly that she carefully premeditated the crime over a period of weeks or months, she would have found some other means to carry out her plans.

[Disambiguator]

If we follow Jenny's thinking and mindset to its conclusion, it would go something like this:

"And after guns were banned the clouds rolled back and all the evil handguns were floated up to heaven where they were melted down and made into harps."

"Then rainbows appeared everywhere and the happy citizens, free from the dread of being killed by handguns, danced in the streets, and all the children sang."

"And everyone lived happily and safely ever after, and only Democrats were elected to office from that point on."

[harpu]

Hmmmm...just imagine; 10's of thousands, no, back that 100's of thousands of criminals lining up to turn-in their hand cannons and assault weapons - NOT!

[marine86297]

2 words:

MOLAN LABE!

Semper Fidelis

[Luke Skyfreeper]

She killed them because she was a crazy deranged old woman who likely would have picked up a butcher knife or run them down with her car to do the deed.

Exactly.

Ignoring for a moment the utter imbecility of trying to confiscate handguns at bazillions of dollars of taxpayer expense from the millions of people who use them legitimately FOR SELF-DEFENSE FROM EVIL CRIMINALS, if this woman was so determined to commit murder that she went through all of the trouble she is alleged to have gone through, the simple lack of a handgun would NEVER have deterred her.

She would have simply turned either to use of a car, a hammer applied to the back of the head (just as easy for an old lady to use as a handgun), or rat poison.

The proposed "solution" has PRECISELY ZERO chance of achieving the desired effect, and has a 100% PERCENT chance of preventing honest, law-abiding elderly grandfathers from defending themselves against being beaten to death by thugs; and a 100% PERCENT chance of keeping kind middle-aged women from defending themselves against being raped and strangled with pantyhose.

[andy58-in-nh]

You are correct - it's Barbara Streisand. Click Here.

Extract: "Research by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz reveals Americans use guns for self-defense as often as 2.5 million times a year--that's three to five times more often than they are misused by criminals."

[harpu]

back that... = make that...

[mtbopfuyn]

Oh, have I got a story for you. Yesterday, while getting the kids' (teens, btw) check ups our brand new soon to be *EX* doctor started playing the liberal game. One question was if there were guns in the house which was immediately followed a long lecture on the dangers of guns, blah, blah, swiftly notes it in the file, blah, blah, safety, blah, blah, locks, blah, blah, ammo, blah, blah. Somewhere in there I completely zoned out no thanks to a 101 temperature and the "good" cough syrup as the kids' jaws were hanging open in total shock at the doctor. Sadly, it wasn't until after getting home and coming out of the fog from missing a dose of the "good" cough syrup that I told the kids to next time some idiot starts in on gun control to announce proudly that they are tops in their rifle class. Never mind that Mr. M is LE but most importantly WHAT THE HECK BUSINESS IS IT OF THE DOCTOR'S???

[Final Authority]

I asked a question regarding the Nazi's, I did not make a statement. The question I asked, if one considers the full range of facts, has answers and understanding that goes beyond simple explanations, but rather, there are nuanced understandings where one would not automatically conclude that by definition alone they were indeed liberal (socialist is a term of art) but rather a more complicated description would apply.

If one remembers, many conservatives have been referred to as "Nazi's", for their conservative views, and during the '60s and early '70s, Nazi's were often regarded as a "right wing" political movement. In fact, if one takes the time to research the history leading up to the Nazi movement, the movement began as a alternative to the rise of communism in the east and the permissive and liberal government within Germany.

[hiredhand]

What do liberals care about "saving lives"? Have you ever tried to pin one down on this? They won't rub elbows with any seriously down and out people. The richest state (and one of the most liberal) in the nation (Mass.) has given less to charity over the past couple of years than the poorest state (Mississippi).

Ms. was hit HARD by hurricane Katrina. Possibly harder than NOLA. But Ms. got practically ZERO press. Why? Because everybody at every little church down there all got together like they had been taught and they pulled together and helped each other out. They didn't all herd like a bunch of cattle to a holding pen where the predators among them could carry out criminal acts in pleasure and terrorize the rest. They didn't shoot at any helicopters trying to deliver aid. It wasn't required that the National Guard be posted in mass numbers there.

The contrast was quit visible. But you didn't hear about it from the main stream media, did you? Nope. That's right. I didn't think so. :-)

Leftist/liberals don't volunteer for anything unless it furthers their political cause, or has a very high "feel good" factor. Which in their own warped thinking has become very offensive to the rest of us. They march for homosexuals, women's rights, unjust wars, that stinking bunch of Arabs everybody calls "Palestinians", the environment, the "right" to murder the unborn, the ousting of God Almighty from public schools and government property...and the list goes on and on.

But I don't run into very many of them who step outside their own little self righteous circles and really try to help anybody in need around them.

They would rather fight for social programs that we as taxpayers pay for, and then take credit for being charitable themselves.

...and when they are successful at passing another social program at our expense, they actually believe they did something good and praise each other for it.

Take 15 minutes and open a Bible and read Paul's letter to the Church at Rome. Read chapter one, verse one through about 27. That pretty much sums them up.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

Yes, in fact you bring up a salient point which should not be ignored or conceded:

Handgun bans and confiscation are an unconstitutional denial of the rights of law-abiding citizens. It is as simple as that.

[Final Authority]

See my reply #76

[Leatherneck_MT]

Government that has grown to big is the biggest threat to our liberties one and all. They start small, and like boiling a frog, most people don't wake up to what's done to them until they are the ones who are getting their oxes gored. Start out with something simple.. say Car Seats "For the chilluns." Then Seat Belts "For cutting down on health care costs" Then Smoking "oops, for the chilluns again" Then "For whatever reason." Finally it will be gun registration "Why should cars be licensed and guns not?" is the argument Before long it will be "Papers Please!" and finally "We need you to go into this large chamber, take your clothes off and all personal effects and go into the de-lousing area. After that we will process you." I can see it happening just as if it had already occurred. oh.. wait.. it has. Germany, 1935 is when it started most recently.