Guns, Carried Openly or Concealed, Threaten Our Safety

Handguns do not serve as deterrents but rather consistently threaten our safety

Reader Comments
Back to argument

"According to the Roberts Supreme Court, the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms to protect "hearth and home." Carrying a loaded gun in public is therefore a privilege that can, and should be regulated by the state for the benefit of all Americans."

~Josh Horwitz

This is just the usual half-baked tripe we've come to expect from Horwitz and all others of his ilk. The reason the SCOTUS limited the scope of their ruling in both Heller and McDonald is that the pleadings were similarly limited! They can no more rule on a question not before them than the "wise latina" can grasp the arguments in favor of O'Bumbles-care.

Not to worry, though, The judge in Woollard ruled:

"To secure these rights, the Second Amendment‘s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be’.”.

Fortunately, it looks like the Maryland AG is so fatally stupid that he's actually going to take this to SCOTUS....

"No, no! Please don't throw us in the brier patch!"

By the time he gets paid, I'm sure Gura will *need* a new Ferrari...

Daniel Kenoyer of OR 12:17PM April 26, 2012

Nice to know that US News supports platforms for propaganda.

Sandbag of CT 11:01AM April 26, 2012

So, to extrapolate, taking a self-defense course based around martial arts would mean you're more likely to pick a fight and assault random strangers? And, it would be totally pointless, anyway, because you may be married to someone who beats you to death while you're sleeping?

You can be concerned about the law. You can be vocal about your opposition. You can even actively attempt to change the law. You should be ashamed, however, to be resorting to vilifying a domestic abuse victim for fighting for what she (and the legal system) believed was her protected right.

Frankly, if I saw someone legally carrying openly in a small population that is generally hostile to it, I'd roll my eyes. I don't view that as a very effective deterrent. Having a population that is open, accepting, and active in legal, concealed carry makes for a much more pleasant society.

Brian of MD 10:37AM April 26, 2012

It seems like Meleanie Hain was murdered more easily because she *wasn't* carrying... she left her gun in her backpack. If this example is the most compelling support for the Sugarmann argument, then perhaps the argument is weak.

"Guns carried in public by private citizens—open or concealed—threaten public and private safety." In this example, what was the threat to public safety? "...scaring the other soccer moms..." Is fear the same thing as threat? If so, then thunder is a threat to my dog.

Our arguments should support our claims. If the logic chain doesn't work, then don't be surprised if you don't win the debate.

Doug Dyer of VA 10:34AM April 26, 2012

407 since 2007. Interesting. That is less than 100/year. There may have been more instances of self defense uses of a gun in 2011 alone. Unfortunately, self defense with a gun doesn't always get reported by the victim if they didn't have to shoot or the news outlets.

The fact is way more people die in car accidents than by a gun.

Check out www.facebook.com/gunsinselfdefense

Guns in Defense of SC 10:09AM April 26, 2012

"Meleanie Hain believed that a handgun—on her hip or in her home—guaranteed her personal safety. "

LIAR LIAR. She believed it would be a deterrent, not a miracle. Hain was not an idiot or a fool - there is no reason to believe she believed anything that idiotic and foolish. Sugarman puts words into the mouth of a dead woman, a victim of domestic violence, in a sad attempt to make sure all women have no better chance of survival than Hain. Disgusting.

A Critic of NH 8:06AM April 26, 2012

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - THOMAS JEFFERSON

Thomas Jefferson of CA 4:02AM April 26, 2012

Mr Sugarmann would like to ban all civilian possession of firearms.

Only law enforcement would be allowed firearms.

But what Mr Sugarmann forget to mention was that her husband Scott Hain was a law enforcement officer. (parole officer)

So banning civilian possession would not have stopped this tragedy.

Mike Madson of NE 1:12AM April 26, 2012

I would rather have a fighting chance at protecting my family and myself, than cower in the corner waiting to be shot.

Cops kill many more innocent lives than responsible, adult ccw or open.

Your example holds no weight. He would have done the same with a knife, golf club or any other thing handy. Should we ban your butter knives?

Joe Joe of NJ 10:41PM April 25, 2012

As a violence policy advocate, the steps needed to end gun violence are clear.

The First step is to take advantage of high profile incidents.

The Second step is to marginalize legal gun use and historic precedent.

The Third step is to make some guns seem more dangerous than others, even if they are not.

The Fourth step is to register every sale.

The Fifth step is a robust “Shall Issue” permitting process.

The Final step is to encourage and incentivize the forfeiture of arms.

Gunbanner of CA 5:37PM April 25, 2012

<1 2 3 4 >