Why do you wish to see more children killed?

To the editor:

I just read the March 2-15 edition and observed much verbosity and rocks being thrown about guns with very few facts involved in a most of the paper. So why does NHBR wish to see more children killed? I’m sure many have the knee-jerk reaction that they wish that less children are killed, but the facts show that implementing gun control has the opposite effect.

There seems to be an assumption that by restricting gun ownership, lunatics will become sane, criminals will become honest law-abiding citizens, and children will then be safe. In Canada, England and Australia the opposite has happened. As gun ownership has decreased, the overall death rate due to violent crime has risen, in some locations dramatically.

But let’s not obsess on general gun ownership, let’s look at the effects of eliminating gun ownership on school massacres.

China recently suggested that we follow their example and eliminate private gun ownership implying that they have eliminated THEIR problem with school massacres. Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, we should consider two countries which have VERY draconian gun bans: Russia and China. Russia and China one asks? Emphatically, yes. I pray this country never gets to the point where the government can operate as callously as those two countries with individuals’ rights. Guns are very heavily regulated in Russia and pretty well banned in China.

(Editor’s note: The author of the letter includes links to information contained on Wikipedia, under “Chinese school attacks,” that lists several mass murders at schools in China involving weapons other than guns, as well as information about an attack in Russia involving terrorists who took over a school in Beslan that resulted in the deaths of over 300 people, including more than 150 children.)

Beyond these examples as to the effectiveness of gun control measures at preventing school massacres (actually, lack thereof) is the fact that even if the Columbine attackers had not had access to firearms, they had planned an explosives-based attack using propane cylinders. While the propane cylinders were found to not be practical explosives because of inadequate refinement of their devices, there is no reason to believe the attackers would not have perfected the devices if that is the only weapon they had to rely on.

If these examples of the inventiveness of homicidal maniacs is insufficient, consider that the thugs and terrorists out to do general mayhem and murder are now using aircraft, SUVs, trucks and sedans along with anything else they can lay their hands on.

Gun-free zones really equate to no-resistance target zones where the targets are innocents who are largely unable to fight back. Target the problem (mental instability) not the symptom.

Do you really believe lunatics will actually behave in a sane manner with gun control?

Kerry Crouse

Nashua