I read a interesting Op-Ed on the L.A. Times web site by a woman named Jenny Price who is advocating for a national handgun ban. She wants one because her brother, David, and his fiancee were killed 5 years ago by a handgun. After initially writing a pro-ban piece, she later Googled herself and found that she was the online target of various levels of debate, mischief, ridicule and even threats — and quite frankly I’m shocked that she was shocked. Here then, are a couple of opinions I have with Ms. Price’s piece.
First of all, the circumstances surrounding David’s death are quite unusual (at least I found them unusual). David and his fiancee were shot by… his future mother-in-law!
According to her piece:
After briefly stating that David and his fiancee were shot and killed by the fiancee’s mother, who was angry that she had to move out of their L.A. apartment, I went on to argue for a national ban on handguns.
Ms. Price continued:
The gun control lobby, led by the Brady Campaign, has worked passionately to make guns safer and to regulate their sales. But such measures, I contended, will never significantly reduce the annual U.S. death toll by firearms — 12,000 — because most murderers use legally purchased handguns and know how to operate them safely.
OK, stop the tape!
I know 12,000 deaths is significant and each one of those deaths is a tragedy to someone, somewhere. But to argue that we need to ban handguns BECAUSE murderers buy guns legally (I would question that statistic, but she doesn’t cite a source) and they know how to use them safely… use them safely?? — APPARENTLY NOT, Ms. Price!! You apparently have confused training with intent. A criminal uses a gun with an illegal intent. An accident occurs when someone is not trained. Ms. Price seems to have the 2 concepts confused. David’s killer may have been trained in using a handgun, but she also had a criminal intent. Removing the gun from the equation doesn’t change that point.
Secondly, I am dismayed that she is so shocked by the reaction she got on the internet. Are you new to the web, Ms. Price? It’s a largely unaccountable environment. People say stupid things on the web that they wouldn’t dare utter to another human in person. Men claim to be women, adults claim to be children, terrorist claim to be holy men… it’s a great communication channel, but it is also 1 part fantasy and 2 parts Bulls***. The fact that you became the flashpoint for a group of gun-loving geeks (of which I’m one) shouldn’t surprise you, given the your position.
Thirdly, Ms. Price writes:
But when these gun-obsessed guys in their underwear talk to like-minded guys, they build a community that reinforces a level of intolerance that is off the charts. After all, the Internet doesn’t create community. People create community — and how the Internet is used depends on the people who use it.
People create community — correct! and these Second Amendment defenders are highly offended by your intolerant, ignorant, and emotionally-biased view of guns in America. They are offended by your “I have the answer and you should abide by it” attitude that flies in the face of American individuality and independence.
(Readers should also note how Ms. Price paints a negative picture by using of “gun-obsessed guys in their underwear” — that doesn’t sound like your dad, or your doctor, or your teacher, does it? No, it’s ‘those lunatics who own guns’…)
Ms. Price also writes:
I’d spent a week in the company of people with closed minds and cold hearts. And what saddens me most is that vengeful intolerance is all too common and leads people every day to reach for a handgun to kill people.
When the National Rifle Assn. commits itself to spreading peacefulness and tolerance among its members, I’d be all for it. Meanwhile, do you really want these people on these websites (and 40 million other people in the country) to have guns?
Excuse me, Ms. Price, but the NRA-sponsored gun education programs have educated more people than any other civic organization in the history of the U.S. (I would say any organization, but the armed forces have undoubtedly taught more people about gun safety.)
And the answer is a definite “YES!” I would much rather have 1 million, or a 100 million, responsible American adults, properly educated in the use of a firearm, be armed and conducting their daily lives however they see fit, than to have you dictate what is best for 300 million Americans — let alone what’s best for me! That’s what freedom and liberty are about, Ms. Price.
She concludes her Op-Ed with this:
I can cite statistics, and I can tell you why the right to carry a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun with a 10-shot clip is not guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. But the paranoia and bone-chilling hatred that spew from such sites as packing.org and freerepublic.com make for an equally — and unusually — effective argument for a ban on handguns.
Ms. Price, please cite your statistics. I’d be very interested in hearing them and learning where, in the Bill of Rights, you see the text which precludes me carrying a 9mm with a 10 (or maybe a 17) round magazine. (and, technically speaking, a clip and a magazine are not the same thing and a 9mm semiauto would not use a clip, it would use a magazine)
A gun is a tool. An inanimate object… it ONLY functions when a human makes it go bang. If your brother’s killer used a knife to stab him to death, would you seriously be advocating a national ban on knives?? I think you’re angry (and I don’t blame you) and misplacing your anger on handguns. People are the problem with murder, not handguns.
I doubt Ms. Price will answer this invitation, but if she does Google herself again, maybe she’ll respond. If she does, I’ll post her answers — but don’t hold your breath…
6pence
.
