I Guess It All Depends
...on your definition of "most effective".
Massachusetts supposedly has the "most effective" gun laws in the country. The City of Boston has even stricter regulations on the purchase, possession, and carrying of firearms than those that exist at the state level. There's just one small problem (insert DHBA here).
These "common sense" gunsafety control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens, who wish to own firearms for lawful purposes, and do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining and using firearms in the course of their chosen profession. In Boston today, it's nearly as easy for 13-year-old kid to buy a gun as it is a pack of baseball cards.
Stop me if you've heard this one before.
And to what do our esteemed academic "experts" attribute this rise in illegal guns in the city?
Are you sitting down?
With all due respect (and I mean that quite literally), Mr. Hemenway, that has to be the furthest removed from reality, most ignorant, and/or idiotic piece of absolute garbage I have ever read. You don't, by any chance, have a night job where might be coming in contact with industrial shoe adhesive, do you?
Read that again and let it sink in for a second.
"...criminals tend to arm themselves as others become armed..."
Who exactly are these "others"?
If you are alluding to "other criminals", additional laws restricting the legal ownership of guns by non-criminals won't be ofmuch any help.
If, by "others", you are in fact referring to the non-criminals, then you are taking the Rosie O'Donnell Creed of "Guns Cause Crime" to never-before seen heights of ignorance and stupidity. Let me see if I'm following your logic here: more law-abiding citizens are acquiring arms with which to defend themselves against violent criminals. In turn, the violent criminals are reacting with, "Damn, now I gotta get me a gat too."
So now it's "Citizens Who Refuse To Be Helpless Victims Cause Crime"?
Houston, we have a problem.
Are you, in all seriousness, implying that if private gun ownership is banned, the violent two-legged predators among us will recognize that their job will have become that much easier and, subsequently, lay down their arms? Makes perfectly good sense to me. After all, all they ever wanted in the first place was a "fair fight" between them and their victims.
That plan has worked so well in England (and Washington D.C., Chicago, Brazil, South Africa, etc.) where living with violent crime has become an everyday way of life since private handgun ownership (and, thereby, legal, armed self-defense) has been rendered all but a distant memory.
I'll say this, though. I thought for a second there that Mr. Hemenway was on the right track, but, alas, he didn't close that particular sentence at the word "themselves".
And, of course, you know this story will lead to additional gun control laws being called for by the hand-wringing, carjacker-sympathizing idiots we here in Massachusetts call legislators. Hey, if what we currently have on the books has been proven to be an abject failure, then by all means, let's have some more.
Gotta rock da gansta vote.
How about a new law making it super-illegal to steal?
These "experts" honestly believe that if the rest of the United States adopted Massachusetts' "common-sense" approach to gun control, the rate of gun violence in the inner city would plummet to near-zero levels. Apparently, a defenseless 72-year-old woman facing a machete-wielding intruder is OK by them. Or maybe we should ban machetes (and bricks, golf clubs, folding chairs, kitchen knives, pointy sticks, etc.). Clearly, the commoners can't be trusted with such deadly implements.
As far as Mr. Hemenway and the rest of his idiotic disciples are concerned, I'll defend their right to preach this vacuous stupidity, and to cede their personal sovereignty to the state if it's their desire to do so. But, if they assume the rest of will happily play along, they're sorely mistaken.
UPDATE: More from gun safety "expert" David Hemenway:
So the "solution" here, according to Mr. Hemenway, is to disarm the homeowner. This will immediately cause the burglar to toss his gun aside, so the two of them can sit down, put on a pot of tea, and peacefully negotiate which of the homeowner's possessions the burglar shall be entitled to take home. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Hey, if the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can legally seize your property "for the common good", then why not the neighborhood meth addicts, as well? We don't want to discriminate.
Of course! It was __________________'s fault!
A) the gun
B) the storeowner
C) the customer
D) Halliburton
Why, that considerate crackhead (who was just turning his life around to pursue a promising career in rap music) was carrying the gun for the sole purpose of preventing injury or death. What would drive a storeowner to take the life of such a noble humanitarian?
Self-preservation: It'snot just for rich folks.
Massachusetts supposedly has the "most effective" gun laws in the country. The City of Boston has even stricter regulations on the purchase, possession, and carrying of firearms than those that exist at the state level. There's just one small problem (insert DHBA here).
These "common sense" gun
Stop me if you've heard this one before.
Boston police officials say there are more guns on city streets than at any time in at least six years, and they are stepping up efforts to stem the flow of the weapons, many of which they believe are being brought illegally into Massachusetts from out of state.
And to what do our esteemed academic "experts" attribute this rise in illegal guns in the city?
Are you sitting down?
David Hemenway, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and the author of "Private Guns, Public Health," a 2004 book about the impact of guns on society, said criminals tend to arm themselves as others become armed, meaning that it is critical to make guns less accessible.
With all due respect (and I mean that quite literally), Mr. Hemenway, that has to be the furthest removed from reality, most ignorant, and/or idiotic piece of absolute garbage I have ever read. You don't, by any chance, have a night job where might be coming in contact with industrial shoe adhesive, do you?
Read that again and let it sink in for a second.
"...criminals tend to arm themselves as others become armed..."
Who exactly are these "others"?
If you are alluding to "other criminals", additional laws restricting the legal ownership of guns by non-criminals won't be of
If, by "others", you are in fact referring to the non-criminals, then you are taking the Rosie O'Donnell Creed of "Guns Cause Crime" to never-before seen heights of ignorance and stupidity. Let me see if I'm following your logic here: more law-abiding citizens are acquiring arms with which to defend themselves against violent criminals. In turn, the violent criminals are reacting with, "Damn, now I gotta get me a gat too."
So now it's "Citizens Who Refuse To Be Helpless Victims Cause Crime"?
Houston, we have a problem.
Are you, in all seriousness, implying that if private gun ownership is banned, the violent two-legged predators among us will recognize that their job will have become that much easier and, subsequently, lay down their arms? Makes perfectly good sense to me. After all, all they ever wanted in the first place was a "fair fight" between them and their victims.
That plan has worked so well in England (and Washington D.C., Chicago, Brazil, South Africa, etc.) where living with violent crime has become an everyday way of life since private handgun ownership (and, thereby, legal, armed self-defense) has been rendered all but a distant memory.
I'll say this, though. I thought for a second there that Mr. Hemenway was on the right track, but, alas, he didn't close that particular sentence at the word "themselves".
And, of course, you know this story will lead to additional gun control laws being called for by the hand-wringing, carjacker-sympathizing idiots we here in Massachusetts call legislators. Hey, if what we currently have on the books has been proven to be an abject failure, then by all means, let's have some more.
Gotta rock da gansta vote.
Authorities said many guns appear to be stolen weapons from other states that are brought to Massachusetts, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
How about a new law making it super-illegal to steal?
These "experts" honestly believe that if the rest of the United States adopted Massachusetts' "common-sense" approach to gun control, the rate of gun violence in the inner city would plummet to near-zero levels. Apparently, a defenseless 72-year-old woman facing a machete-wielding intruder is OK by them. Or maybe we should ban machetes (and bricks, golf clubs, folding chairs, kitchen knives, pointy sticks, etc.). Clearly, the commoners can't be trusted with such deadly implements.
As far as Mr. Hemenway and the rest of his idiotic disciples are concerned, I'll defend their right to preach this vacuous stupidity, and to cede their personal sovereignty to the state if it's their desire to do so. But, if they assume the rest of will happily play along, they're sorely mistaken.
UPDATE: More from gun safety "expert" David Hemenway:
Rarely does a suburban homeowner beat a burglar to the draw in his living room at 3 a.m.
So the "solution" here, according to Mr. Hemenway, is to disarm the homeowner. This will immediately cause the burglar to toss his gun aside, so the two of them can sit down, put on a pot of tea, and peacefully negotiate which of the homeowner's possessions the burglar shall be entitled to take home. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Hey, if the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can legally seize your property "for the common good", then why not the neighborhood meth addicts, as well? We don't want to discriminate.
Ask criminals why they carried a gun while robbing the convenience store and frequently the answer is,"What are you, retarded?""So I could get the money and not have to hurt anyone." But as Hemenway explains, "Then something happens. Maybe somebody unexpectedly walks in, or the storeowner draws a gun."
Of course! It was __________________'s fault!
A) the gun
B) the storeowner
C) the customer
D) Halliburton
"Your heart is racing. Next thing you know, somebody is dead."
Why, that considerate crackhead (who was just turning his life around to pursue a promising career in rap music) was carrying the gun for the sole purpose of preventing injury or death. What would drive a storeowner to take the life of such a noble humanitarian?
Hemenway scoffs at the rote objection, "A determined criminal will always get a gun," responding, "Yes, but a lot of people aren't that determined. I'm sure there are some determined yacht buyers out there, but when you raise the price high enough, a lot of them stop buying yachts."
Self-preservation: It's
