Go ahead. Take your best "shot."

[larrymeyer]

New editoral on Heller WTF they never give up

June 27
It strikes me as more than a bit ironic that on the day that the U.S. Supreme Court issues a historic ruling on the rights of Americans to own guns, the front page of this newspaper is again dominated by a story involving the use of a gun to snuff out another life in the city of Chester.
I know, I know, it wasn't the gun that really killed 30-year-old Khali Henson. It was the person who pulled the trigger.

Advertisement


But I remain convinced that we have far too many guns in the hands of far too many people who have no business possessing them, and who think nothing of using them to settle their differences.

The question now seems to be where do we go from here. The high court's ruling for the first time clearly espouses an interpretation of the Second Amendment to mean that individuals have the right to own a gun or guns for their personal use, including defending their home.

In the process they knocked down a three-decades-old ban on handguns in Washington, D.C.

The court's ruling also is a setback for those who would argue that gun rights should be viewed only as part of the so-called "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment.

It will not, however, end the battle over handguns, and those seeking to rein in their use and availability. For instance, officials in Philadelphia, which recently passed a series of ordinances to beef up gun controls, appear optimistic that the high court is not ruling against all such measures.

They continue to joust with the NRA and Delco lawyer C. Scott Shields, who were successful in having several key elements of the Philly laws tossed, even while several others were left intact. Among them are a 48-hour deadline to report lost or stolen guns, the right of police to seize guns from someone considered a danger to themselves or others, and a ban on guns for anyone subject to a protection from abuse order.

The court tossed provisions limiting gun purchases to one a month.

Still to be decided is whether the city even has the legal ability to create such laws. Shields and the NRA argue that lies solely with the state Legislature.

The debate will continue. We are a society awash in guns. I don't want to see anyone's Second Amendment rights violated. I also think there are too many guns in the hands of people who should not have them.

Will the laws currently on the books resolve this situation, even if they were vigorously enforced.

I'm not sure.

What I am sure about is that we're no closer to solving this riddle, even with the ruling from the high court.

If you have ideas, offer your response. Go ahead. Take your best "shot."

http://www.delcotimes.com/site/news....id=18171&rfi=6

Comments at the bottom of the page
*

[soup]

Link posted isnt working

[larrymeyer]

Fixed the link

[bogey1]

still not working...

[jtkratzer]

Posted this comment:

My question for you, in regards to the number of guns in the hands of the wrong people, is this: What would you prefer, the right to defend yourself from such vermin in our society or a ban on guns preventing you from protecting yourself and your family? The problem, as seen in the UK and Australia, is gun crimes still persist and illegal guns are still present and available.

The talk of "if we ban guns, only bad people will have guns" does become tiring, but it's a reality. We do have a problem with gun violence in this country, but the problem is the people committing these crimes are already breaking the law. Adding more laws does not stop them. Making something presently illegal even more illegal doesn't stop the crime.

National statistics show legally-armed citizens as some of the most law-abiding in the country.

An interesting point that always comes to mind when reading about the problem of gun violence in our country is that far more people die every year from car accidents, accidents involving DUI, smoking-related deaths, cancer, heart disease, and other obesity-related problems than all homicides. Gun crime is a problem, but if we wanted to have the biggest impact in saving lives, I would think we'd focus on the issues with the highest death toll. Gun crimes and gun violence seem to be the convenient hot topic to focus on. Why? You, the other journalists, and those who support gun control will have answer that question. So I ask, why focus on gun crimes when the statistics show homicide didn't even make the top 10 causes of death in 2005. What was the top 10? Some will surprise you: 1. Heart Disease: 652,091 2) Malignant Neoplasms: 559,312 3) Cerebrovascular: 143,579 4) Chronic Low-Respiratory Disease: 130,933 5) Unintentional Injury: 117,809 6) Diabetes Mellitus: 75,119 7) Alzheimer's Disease: 71,599 8) Influenza & Pneumonia: 63,001 9) Nephritis: 43,901 10) Septicemia: 34,136. So there you have it. And finally, is it simply more convenient or a means to a political agenda to focus on gun crimes when homicide doesn’t even make the top 10 causes of death? I would think if we truly wanted to make an impact, we would target heart disease and focus on healthy eating habits, exercise, healthy life-styles, etc. rather than worrying about the guns and violence that kill less than 5% of the number of people that die as a result of heart disease.

You might suggest, “I can control what eat and whether or not I exercise. I can take care of myself in an effort to prevent the majority of the issues listed on this top 10. I can’t control whether or not someone attacks me or shoots me.” And I would counter with the fact that if everyone supported the rights of individuals who obey the law to keep and bear arms in self-defense of the state and themselves, you have a fighting chance of defending yourself. Is it guaranteed to be 100% successful? No, nor does a healthy diet, exercise, and a healthy lifestyle ensure that you won’t die of heart disease. But I can guarantee that if someone wants to shoot you, and you’re unarmed, you have nearly a 0% chance of escaping unharmed, let alone alive.

When it comes to crime, it is what it is. Perhaps we should focus on and target the causes of crime rather than a tool used to commit crimes. As we’ve seen in the UK, when guns are banned, knife crimes and violent crime as a whole skyrockets and surpasses previous crime levels before guns were banned. I ask, is the goal to reduce all crime or just gun crimes?

[jtkratzer]

still not working...

It worked for me.

[noofus]

But I remain convinced that we have far too many guns in the hands of far too many people who have no business possessing them, and who think nothing of using them to settle their differences.

I dont disagree with this part of the editorial. There are far too many guns in the hands of people who shouldnt have them. Guess what - the people who shouldnt have them didnt buy them legally. They arent supposed to have them because they cant legally get them.

People who buy guns legally arent the problem.

I guess the antis dont want to acknowledge this little fact...

[jtkratzer]

I dont disagree with this part of the editorial. There are far too many guns in the hands of people who shouldnt have them. Guess what - the people who shouldnt have them didnt buy them legally. They arent supposed to have them because they cant legally get them.

People who buy guns legally arent the problem.

I guess the antis dont want to acknowledge this little fact...

It's simply a mere inconvenience to their agenda.

[1iarrowking]

I don't know what's wrong, but all I get from Larry's link is Error 404-Not Found.

[soup]

I don't know what's wrong, but all I get from Larry's link is Error 404-Not Found.

Same here. I wonder if you have to have a subscription to see all of the articles