Skip to comments.
The bias against handguns: Boston Globe EDITORIALS/OPINIONS
page A15 of the Boston Globe ^
| 3/18/2002
| Cathy Youngis a contributing editor at Reason magazine
Posted on 03/18/2002 6:21:14 AM PST by rface
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:33 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
DOES DOMESTIC gun ownership pose a more serious threat to Americans than foreign terrorism?
That's what New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof seems to be saying in a recent article. Alarmed by reports of a surge in gun sales after Sept. 11, Kristof cites familiar statistics on the perils of guns. Japan, where handguns are practically unavailable, had only 29 gun deaths (both murders and suicides) in 1999, while the United States had 26,800 gun deaths in 2000. England, another country with a strict handgun ban, has higher rates of assault and burglary than the United States but a murder rate only one-sixth of ours.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; guns; masslist
Surprised to see this in this Boston paper.
Ashland, Missouri
1
posted on
03/18/2002 6:21:14 AM PST
by
rface
To: rface
The NYT. All the news that's sh*t to print.
To: bang_list
indexing
3
posted on
03/18/2002 6:38:44 AM PST
by
coloradan
To: rface
Surprised to see this in this Boston paper.
The author is a libertarian. Oh and btw more of us are armed per capita then you evil republicans. :). Yes I know what will come next!
To: Libertarian_4_eva
More of you armed ? We've got more guns per capita.
To: rface
Yes it's a good thing that the victims of Bundy, Gacy, the Hillside Strangler etc. didn't have guns. You know they could have hurt themselves terribly. I'm being sarcastic, but what is the total number of deaths that could have been prevented by murder victims who DIDN'T HAVE GUNS when they were being killed if they'd have had them? The aforementioned mass killers slaughtered their victims without benefit of those awful handguns. Yes and certainly someone who was contemplating shooting someone else with a handgun would never consider using a shotgun if they couldn't get a handgun right? Or a knife, or poison, or whatever. It's laughable the logic of the these liberals. I should say, what logic?
The cold reality is that America produces far more people who think killing someone else is a very good way to slove a particular problem. There is a huge difference in psychology between us and those nations who have very low murder rates. But talking about that, my section of the country (western Wisconsin) has a very low murder rate, equivalent to most European countries, and a very high gun-ownership rate. How do the liberals explain that?
6
posted on
03/18/2002 9:31:24 AM PST
by
driftless
To: rface,Mass_List
Wow. I can't believe this was in the Globe.
7
posted on
03/18/2002 2:35:13 PM PST
by
AStack75
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson