YOUR COMMENTS

"A well armed society is a polite society." -- author Robert Heinlein
- tony, pembroke

We can talk statistics all day long but there is only one statistic that matters - When a dirtbag breaks into your home, do you have the means to protect yourself and your family? At that moment crime rates in your town, city, state, or nation don't matter at all. What matters is defending your life and keeping your loved ones safe. The right to self defense is a basic human right that is protected (but not granted) by the United States Constitution and 5 of the 9 Justices currently on the court. Thankfully, the good people of DC now have their basic human rights protected as well. This can only serve to make them safer. The criminals already had their guns, and have used them frequently over the last 30 years. Now they have something extra to think about before that next break-in. It's tough to compile statistics on that but you know it's a fact.
- Mark, Amherst

I don't remember exactly how it goes but here it is: "Criminals with guns are feared by all. Good people with guns are feared only by criminals." Simplistic, maybe, but there's some logic to it.
- Guy, Manchester

At least one of the three 2006 NH murders committed with a gun involved a criminal from MA (Officer Briggs). It would interesting to know how many of the the other murders involved people from other states.

Criminals will always find a way to aquire fire arms. It's the sportsmen and law abidding citizens that are penalized.
- MS, Kingston

I'm pro gun, I want to know how many crimes committed in DC with Handguns were committed by Felons, Repeat offendors, etc. ANY Stats ?
- bob, Auburn

I've lived in DC.I cannot recall one day when i didn't hear gunshots,often entire clips being emptied.Children would scatter like birds.On one occasion we drove up behind a schoolbus that a guy walked on to and shot the driver.Mothers picking up their kids were losing it.
Even people who worked for me told stories of getting shot or almost shooting cops.College students in the heart of the city talk about living in a warzone.Until now the only people with weapons were criminals.I hope the new law serves as a powerful message.Maybe the police will be able to do their jobs.Maybe they can scrap the mutlimillion dollar gunshot sensor system.Maybe they can stop locking down neighborhoods.
- will, dc

Unfortunatley, there is absolutely no proof in any scenario presented that the increase in violence was the direct result of a gun ban. Even in the NJ example, could it be possible that violent crimes involving guns were on the rise BEFORE the legislation was put in place? Perhaps that might be the reason for the decision to draft gun control legislation where there was none in the first place? To assume this upward trend came directly from the ban (and yes, the author does in mentioning that the per capita murder rate has increased in Washington since 1976) ignores every other factor that contributes to increased handgun violence and the fact that society is generally more violent now that it was in the past. There is no mention of economic downturns, job loss, or probably the biggest reason, an increase in drug trafficking (think crack) that happened during and after the arrival of these gun bans. Only a law was passed, and vwhala, it's assumed to be at least a main factor in the increase of handgun violence. I'll concede that the ban in DC has not had the intended effect of reducing handgun violence. But the stance in this article ignores all the causes of violence in urban settings and doesn't convince me that lifting the ban would a) reduce gun violence, and b) somehow contribute to solving those underlying issues, which is what actually matters. Show me an example where a ban was lifted, and hand gun violence decreased as a direct result of that legislation and for no other reason.

Just two perversions of data that bear mentioning...

"FBI data for 2006 (the last year with complete data) show that 111 of Massachusetts's 185 murders (60 percent) were committed with a firearm. But in New Hampshire, with more than double the gun ownership rate, only three of 12 murders were committed with a firearm -- a rate of 25 percent."
In discussing the effects of an URBAN gun ban, he/she points to the fact that fewer gun-related deaths in New Hampshire, a state that's 95% farmland and woods, than in Massachusette's, which is home to Boston. No kidding. Could it be that even few gun owners in an urban environment can have a more devastating effect? That would be the reason for an urban gun ban, and the numbers seem to suggest that this is the case.

"FBI studies have shown that only 26 percent of violent crimes involve a weapon -- and only about 6 percent involve a firearm."
Now how many of these total violent crimes resulted in critical injuries or death - and from what cause is that percentage likely to come from? In which environments would they be liley to occur? This is national data, which downplays the situation specific to urban settings. And how many gun-related deaths are enough exactly? The author seems to think this 6% is insignificant. There were hundreds of hangun murders that year and none of them were insignificant. I don't care how many black eyes people got in fist fights, it doesn't speak to the devestation of handgun violence.

This article takes convenient numbers and flaunts them to their advantage. I only care because this doesn't contribute to furthering a solution for kids living in urban settings, it only justifies endemic violence because a law was passed that the author didn't agree with.
- J, Washington, DC

When looking at the gun-banners thought process, it is flawed considerably. However, if you look at the big picture, it becomes quite clear as to their goal.

Fewer guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens = higher crime = need for more police officers = higher taxes = more DEPENDENCE on government = higher taxes...... etc.

This is once again about POWER and government holding all of it. When we are completely dependent on our government for everything, they OWN us and we will have little ability to slow the tax - spenders down because we will "NEED" them to protect us.

Think when you vote this November. Will Barak Hussein Obama appoint Supreme Court Justices like the 5 that were right about the 2nd Amendment beingt the right of the PEOPLE, or will he appoint more Justices like the 4 that think it meant that government will decide your Constitutional rights?

I think everyone knows which way the Supreme court will tile with Barak Hussein Obama appointing Judges.
- Mark, Candia

Note howitiz that gun bans are linked to increases in crime, and the implication is More Guns, Less Crime (the title of John R. Lott's book presenting the statistical analysis of the evidence of the effectiveness of concealed carry laws).

The gungrabbers' next move is to pass 'reasonable restrictions on gun usage' that they hope will effectively prevent law-abiding people from owning and using firearms for self-defense and the defense of others (and thereby to protect their 'precious criminals').
- Bob Kroepel, New Durham

I find it amusing that pundits are already making conclusions about the effects of this court case when it has not even gone into effect. The Supreme Court gave D.C. 30 days to develop a new handgun law, and to date we have not decided on what the particulars should be. That means as of this moment, it is still illegal to own a handgun in D.C. Anyone attempting to show supposed positive or negative consequences of the ban at this point in time should keep this in mind.
- RS Geiger, Washington, DC

As far as I'm concerned, I should be able to bring my legal firearm with me from NH to DC next month for my family's protection. However, I'm more worried about getting a sunburn there than shot!
- DM, Hampton

''What we need to avoid is letting those irrational fears guide public policy, as they did in the District of Columbia for three decades, helping turn that city into one of America's most dangerous.'' Just this one sentence in this fine editorial sums up the whole problem. People who have irrational perceptions of firearms have become a ''punchline'' for the vast majority...and rightfully so.
- Rick Olson, Manchester

It is truely scarey how the "thought process" of many of the people who thought the Supreme court decided the wrong way work. There have been 2 academic studies indicating that more firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens reduce crime, the Kleck/univ. Chicago studied often quoted by John Lott, and the Reno justice department study that sought to discredit the Kleck study but instead validadted it. Several other studies conducted to disprove the Kleck study set out intentionally to do so and have been unable to stand up to peer review becasue the anti-gun bias was so evident that they had no credibiltiy (not that that has stopped the Bradies and thier gang fromquoting from them). In summery, when the Bradies win, criminals have a safer time doing what criminals do., When the pro-freedom forces win, crime goes down. Have you noticed that in every state when the "shall-issue" laws went into effect crime declined an average of 14 %, yet the Bradies always credit something else with the decline. Such outlook, and lack of honesty, is the hallmark of the anti-freedom folks who would seemingly would rather you be killed by a burgler than be able to defend yourself.
- Jeff, Goffstown

If all the good people of our country carried firearms and were willing to protect themselves and their neighbors............ criminals would be out of business.
- Bradley Jardis, Hooksett, NH