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

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

[HannagansBride]

Worse than a person who uses a gun to agress against another is the person who uses "government" to agress againt others. That's what these gun control people are doing. They don't have guts enough to do the job themselves... they enlist government to do it for them.

[mc5cents]

How would gun confiscation be administered?

The Hitler administration had a pretty good plan. You could study that one.

[pgyanke]

Read post 118 and go away. You argue like a John Kerry democrat.

[Daveinyork]

""Using the same logic:

There's only one way to stop teen pregnancy:

Ban Penises.""

I think the feminazis are working on it.

[Redcloak]

Are the facts correct is one thing I would ask?

Most of her "facts" aren't facts at all. For one thing, she compares legal and illegal homicides rates in an attempt to show that self-defense isn't a reason to own handguns. But the fact is that most gun defenses do not involve the discharge of the weapon; let alone casualties. Firearms are used ~2 million times each year in the US to halt crimes. In the vast majority of those cases, the intended victim merely brandishes the gun, causing the criminal to turn tail and run.

If this author were really interested in saving lives, then there are other areas where she could direct her attention. A quick look at Mike Haas' Life/Death Clock shows that one particular segment of the population deserves scrutiny; however, that group, which kills nearly 200,000 Americans each year, is already heavily regulated and licensed.

[Plutarch]

I searched Lexis-Nexis for the last 5 years. There were 212 articles for "David Price" + murder. None matched up with Jenny Price's acount.

This remarkable double murder by an elderly woman has had no news coverage for the last 5 years.

[RinaseaofDs]

I think this has less to do with gun control, and more to do with women, generally speaking, wanting to do anything other than place personal responsibility where it belongs.

Let's not blame crazy Mommy. Let's sue the handgun manufacturer. Part of me, were I a CEO of a handgun company, would want to reply to such a suit with, "What are you suing me for, the gun worked as advertised."

[paguch]

This probably releases her from admitting her brother may have been part of the problem that caused her to act.

[JasonC]

New Hamsphire? This commie is in the wrong state. Move to Massachusetts.

[GovernmentShrinker]

He's missing the point. His brother and sister-in-law-to-be should have been armed themselves. Presumably they both knew that the mother had been angry about being forced to move out. She could have chosen arson, stabbing, poisoning, bludgeoning, or other methods to do in the people she wanted to do in, and they'd be just as dead as they are now. Guns aren't uniquely deadly, but naive assumptions that one doesn't need to be prepared to defend oneself effectively are VERY deadly.

[Sensei Ern]

The right is to bear arms. Why is the focus always on guns? I should be allowed the right to carry whatever weapon I need.

If I felt the need to, shouldn't I be allowed to carry nunchukas, or a longsword?

I am asking because I want serious feedback, not to upset anyone.

[spacewarp]

Well, let's look at her stupid and illformed lying "logic". She says, and I doubt her statistics, but if we go by her numbers, that 160 gun deaths a year are self-defense. She said there are 12,000 deaths a year. And she said that "most" of the gun deaths are by legally owned guns. Yet, she turned around and said that legal handguns used in deaths are 7 times more likely to be murder than self-defense. Hmmmm. That means a total of 1040 deaths by legal handguns. Leaving nearly 11 times that of ILLEGAL guns. And we're going to defend ourselves from those people who will own the guns whether they're illegal or not, how?

She's a liar. Plain and simple.


Paul

[Final Authority]

You are wrong about Nazi's opposing traditional morals. A subset of the movement (the tyrannical leadership) certainly did and that is why the atrocities took place, but the so-called, rank and file Nazi was disgusted by the permissive sexual breakdown during the '20s in their culture and voted for the party in opposition to the liberal culture of the time.

BTW, there was free enterprise in Germany during the war. There was competition for supplying the weapons of war and that competition is what made those weapons so well intended for such purposes. Germany, however, couldn't produce such weapons in quantities needed to be victorious.

Overall, attempting to indirectly equate the present to the Nazi's most always does disservice to the situation in the present and what should be known about the rise and fall of the Nazi's. It is more complicated than that. We shouldn't lump all of those of certain traits into the Nazi bin because you may be called one next, and the Nazi's were and are too important an historical fact to not examine exclusively.

[stockpirate]

Ban Penises

There are some who would think that is a GREAT idea.

[RockinRight]

[dinodino]

They should think about making murder illegal!

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

The only way to ban crime is to ban people who ban guns!!What should be told to all liberals is you are small in number and therefore don't count so shut the hel* up!!

[Final Authority]

It must be difficult for some on these threads to have to actually think and understand about the issues at hand, not just be a bobble headed GOP-Bot or RushBot. Those with a clear and concise understanding of the issues are those who have the ability to consider all facts, historical and technical, and the nuances of the thought process, to better clarify that understanding. Only when one is clear about the issue, can one offer a simple understanding.

It isn't whether Nazi's are liberal (or socialist as you offered) that is the question of this thread, it is who wishes to confiscate guns? The answer is, it is those who wish to impose and maintain tyranny over the governed.

I chose Nazi's for a reason, because the Nazi movement is precisely difficult to define in todays desire for a simple definition. I chose it to elicit such comments, to make you actually think about the issue, and for all of us to consider the consequences of certain reflexive decisions that are possible in response to policies that we may even consider benign.

[OldEagle]

Dumbasses! The only way to stop crime would be to be better-armed than the criminals. Pretty soon there would be a shortage of criminals. Gun control is usually spouted by someone who has never been mugged or raped.

[cpdiii]

These guns are designed to kill people.

That was the only line in the whole article that was correct. I am also against "safer bullets" that were advocated by Jocylyn Elders of the Clinton Administration.

"From my cold dead hands!"