Handgun problem can't be ignored [Barf Alert]

WCF Courier (Iowa) ^ | 3/9/08 | FRED ABRAHAM

[kiriath_jearim]

We recently witnessed, yet again, another case of firearm violence with the shooting deaths of five people on the Northern Illinois University campus. One of the most surprising things in the aftermath was an almost complete lack of discussion on the topic of gun control. The conversation that did occur centered mostly on keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Have we as a country given up on the notion of limiting access to firearms for the general population?

Interestingly, in the Northern Illinois killings, even though the shooter had a shotgun, most of the shots were fired by the handguns he carried. He apparently fired only six of 54 shots from the shotgun. This makes tragic sense of course. Handguns are designed almost exclusively for the purpose of shooting people and they work well. More than 80 percent of all firearm-related homicides involve handguns. Further, over 85 percent of all firearm-related crimes involve handguns. In addition, about 45 percent of all suicides are with handguns. Over a third of all police officers who die in the line of duty each year are shot, mostly by handguns. Clearly, handguns are a problem, yet we do little about them.

The arguments against handgun control are familiar, old and tired: we need handguns to protect ourselves from bad people, whether criminals or invaders; the constitution guarantees our right to have them; arming the population lowers the crime rate. However, statistically, there is no validity to any of these and the constitution does not ensure people access to handguns. The rare occasions when handguns actually do protect safety — and this seldom happens — are far outweighed by deaths caused by them.

Be clear: It isn’t all firearms that need control. It’s primarily handguns. A large segment of our population enjoys hunting as a sport and should be allowed to continue. But, most hunting is done with rifles and shotguns, not handguns. Unfortunately, we seem to be unable to separate an acceptable purpose for firearm ownership — recreation — from an unacceptable one — killing people.

It isn’t that we are a particularly violent society. Our violent crime rate is about average for industrialized nations. Even as bad as TV and movies are about encouraging violence, we’re still not too far from the rest of the world. Where we differ is how we do our violence. David Hemenway, of Harvard University’s Injury Control Research Center says, “In general, guns don’t induce people to commit crimes. What guns do is make crimes lethal.” It’s an excellent point. A hold-up with a knife is a difficult business (even though it is frequently tried) and when confronted, the perpetrator frequently runs off. Not so gunmen. All too often, when they encounter resistance in a robbery, they shoot.

Interpersonal conflicts are much the same way. When disagreements get heated and violent, the violence frequently escalates to firearms and someone gets shot. Without the gun, there may be a fistfight but those are usually not as deadly. Do you remember when handguns were called “Saturday Night Specials?” It was a reference to guns used when domestic disputes resulted in violence. Tempers flared and the result was a shooting. But, no gun, no shooting. And have you ever heard of a drive-by stabbing?

So what can we do? One approach would be to allow the manufacture and sale of handguns only to law enforcement agencies. That would not infringe upon the right to “keep and bear arms” but the effect would certainly be to eventually curtail the availability of handguns. Or, how about tightly controlling the manufacture and distribution of ammunition? Both of these suggestions would control the supply of handguns and not directly restrict individual freedoms but would certainly have an impact.

Another approach would be to heavily tax either handguns, ammunition or both. Or a registration of $1,000 per year also might dissuade more than a few from purchasing handguns.

It’s clear any attempt to directly limit handgun ownership will cause huge constitutional battles but as suggested, there are other ways to accomplish the objective of limiting availability. There is no single magic solution to the handgun problem. Nonetheless, to continue to ignore the enormous human cost accompanying widespread distribution is an embarrassment. We should be a better society than that.

[Rick.Donaldson]

I totally agree...the handgun problem can’t be ignored... all people should be able to carry their handguns with them, without licensing, and anywhere they wish.

Criminals will think TWICE or THREE times before pulling a weapon out in a crowded mall, or school if most people are ARMED.

[coloradan]

Another gun free zone, another mass murder. Yawn.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Interpersonal conflicts are much the same way. When disagreements get heated and violent, the violence frequently escalates to firearms and someone gets shot. Without the gun, there may be a fistfight but those are usually not as deadly. Do you remember when handguns were called “Saturday Night Specials?” It was a reference to guns used when domestic disputes resulted in violence. Tempers flared and the result was a shooting. But, no gun, no shooting. And have you ever heard of a drive-by stabbing?

Umm... No, dumbass-author, "Saturday night specials" were called that because they were cheaply made guns that usually fall apart in your hands after fired once or twice.....

[Rick.Donaldson]

Clearly, handguns are a problem, yet we do little about them.

Umm no, dumbass-author, CRIMINALS committing CRIMES are the problem.. CLEARLY we don't do enough about CRIMINALS. We also don't do enough about dumbass-liberal-authors who write dumbass crap like this and get away with it.

[Rick.Donaldson]

So what can we do? One approach would be to allow the manufacture and sale of handguns only to law enforcement agencies. That would not infringe upon the right to “keep and bear arms” but the effect would certainly be to eventually curtail the availability of handguns. Or, how about tightly controlling the manufacture and distribution of ammunition? Both of these suggestions would control the supply of handguns and not directly restrict individual freedoms but would certainly have an impact.

What to do? What to do? Continue to wring your hands, you dumbass-liberal-author and rest peaceably at night knowing there are people like me and other Freepers who would still defend your dumbass life using one of your hated handguns if someone tried to hurt, maim or kill you.

[joe fonebone]

the only problem i have with handguns is that i have large fingers, and have a hard time finding one that i can put my fingers into, and will still be small enough to carry....

[gondramB]

>>I totally agree...the handgun problem can’t be ignored... all people should be able to carry their handguns with them, without licensing, and anywhere they wish.<<

And there are kids growing up without basic self defense skills and gun safety knowledge.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Another approach would be to heavily tax either handguns, ammunition or both. Or a registration of $1,000 per year also might dissuade more than a few from purchasing handguns.

I think a bill needs to be introduced to heavily tax articles like this, at an amount 3-10 times the amount someone might get paid for writing such an article.

This will help prevent lies and misinformation.

[andy58-in-nh]

Based solely upon their historical coddling of criminals, Democrats are far more dangerous than handguns. Perhaps every time someone registers as a Democrat, we ought to charge them $1000 and send the proceeds to their victims.

[G Larry]

ya!
Mine is trying to decide which one’s I can afford, since I can’t have all that I want!

THAT is a problem!

[bill1952]

the most surprising things in the aftermath was an almost complete lack of discussion on the topic of gun control

Yawn. Read Constitution.
Discussion complete.

[Rick.Donaldson]

It’s clear any attempt to directly limit handgun ownership will cause huge constitutional battles but as suggested, there are other ways to accomplish the objective of limiting availability. There is no single magic solution to the handgun problem. Nonetheless, to continue to ignore the enormous human cost accompanying widespread distribution is an embarrassment. We should be a better society than that.

What is "clear" here is your attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment, and you are a CRIMINAL for trying to do this.

[andy58-in-nh]

The only problem I have with handguns is that I have large fingers, and have a hard time finding one that I can put my fingers into, and will still be small enough to carry....

Have you tried this one? Compact 9mm, very accurate even with a 3-in barrel, 10-16 rd mags, internal striker mechanism w/trigger and grip safeties, nice 3-dot sights.

[bill1952]

Or a registration of $1,000 per year also might dissuade more than a few from purchasing handguns.

How many criminal will that dissuade?

[steve-b]

Have we as a country given up on the notion of limiting access to firearms for the general population?

Yes, dumbass. It happened when the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified.

[Izzy Dunne]

If these criminals will obey the gun laws, then maybe we just just pass a law against killing people and let them obey that.

Oh, wait...

[Archon of the East]

And have you ever heard of a drive-by stabbing?

Why yes I have. If you ever visit that Mecca of a crime infestated state called Great Britain where there are no guns you will. I believe you see an absolute increase all violent crimes and the knife seems to be the weapon of choice.

[Rick.Donaldson]

And there are kids growing up without basic self defense skills and gun safety knowledge.

Well, that isn't my problem, that's their parents' problems. MY children all go basic self-defense instruction, and all of them learned gun safety, even against their will. Children aren't "free citizens" until they reach the "age of majority". Until then they belong to their parents and parents are held responsible for their actions in almost every state in the United States.

Therefore, parents need to be teaching those skills. Parents that do not are directly responsible for their children's actions, or lack thereof in my book.

[gjeiii]

If I correctly understand the author, does not the following obviate the author’s argument ?

“It isn’t that we are a particularly violent society. Our violent crime rate is about average for industrialized nations. Even as bad as TV and movies are about encouraging violence, we’re still not too far from the rest of the world. Where we differ is how we do our violence.”