I guess the major media outlets will publish any article that meets their biased position. Here’s an example from the Boston Globe …
This is truly a bad article, poor journalism, and flat out awful in its attempts to claim laws stop crazy people from doing crazy things. In this particular case, Brian McGrory is trying to equate Massachusetts guns laws to civility. Problem is, crazy lunatics are not civil. And as we’ve seen so many times before, there are people who refuse to blame the person who committed the crime and would rather blame everything and everyone else.
In Massachusetts, he wouldn’t have, not legally.
Do you think a crazy person that’s about to break the law by murdering a group of people cares in the least bit what the gun law says? Sure, he wouldn’t have been able to purchase the gun legally, but that wouldn’t have stopped him from getting the gun.
These liberal fanatics like Brian McGrory think they can control crazy people by passing laws, but what the can’t seem to understand is that criminals and murderers don’t care about the law. If laws prevented people from doing bad things, then no one would be murdered because murder itself is against the law, nor would we have any drunk drivers, because that too is against the law. Drug dealers would be a thing of the past, because last time I checked, that too was illegal.
In Massachusetts, he wouldn’t have been able to walk into a store, flash an ID, and buy a gun, as he did in Arizona, no permit required.
True. He would have gone to a neighboring state where he could buy a gun, or perhaps buy one used, or even crazier he may have bought one illegally. I know, I know … it’s illegal to illegally buy a gun, and it’s doubly illegal to bring a non-registered gun into Massachusetts. But again, do you really think a criminal cares? I’m willing to bet a crazy lunatic with an agenda cares even less.
What about concealed carry permits? Do you think not being able to obtain a concealed carry permit will stop a criminal from carrying a gun? Do you really think a mad man that’s about to shoot up a group of people is going to change his mind because he can’t get one? It doesn’t work that way Brian. You need to step into reality and quit your pursuit of Utopia, because it doesn’t exist. Preventing law-abiding people from owning or carrying a firearm will only put them in more danger, because the lunatics will know they are unarmed.
Here’s the result of these kinds of laws: Massachusetts had 3.51 gun deaths per 100,000 residents in 2007, the third fewest of any state in the nation; Arizona had 14.95, the seventh most
Horrible statistic. This is a great example of irresponsible journalism, and it’s embarrassing. First of all, Arizona is in a border war with Mexico. Massachusetts is not. Second of all, which state has the #1 gun deaths ratio per 100,000 people? Washington DC at 31.7 people. Guess who has just as strict of gun laws as Massachusetts? Washington DC. To claim gun laws work because Massachusetts has a lower gun death ratio than a state with more lax gun laws is just false. It’s overgeneralizing the situation, making it far too simplistic.
There are numerous situations where law-abiding citizens were able to defend themselves using their own firearm. Had they not had their gun, God only knows what would have happened to them and their family members.