Gun-free zones put people at risk
To the editor:
Why are killers at public schools like Newtown able to kill so many people? They didn’t use military grade assault or automatic weapons. Few or none used large-capacity magazines. They killed so many people because they had lots of time to shoot lots of bullets.
They had so much time because politicians made schools “gun-free zones.” And, when every second could mean another dead child, the police are minutes away.
Theoretically, politicians created “gun-free zones” to protect children. But, actually they created “helpless victim zones” allowing killers to easily get their 15 minutes of fame, revenge, or company as they commit suicide.
Criminals have set out intending to kill lots of people in many different places. But, except for one case, killers have only succeeded in killing more than three people in public mass killings in “gun-free zones” where law abiding people cannot have guns that could stop killers.
If people kept dying because a business refused to change a “safety” procedure that failed every time it was needed, the business owners would be loudly condemned as negligent, and they would be liable for civil and perhaps criminal penalties.
Had any people other than politicians created a policy like “gun-free zones”, which help murderers achieve their evil objectives over and over and over, and not changed that policy, they too would be considered negligent and perhaps even accomplices in these murders.
But, the politicians, mostly Democrats led by President Obama and Vice President Biden, are not even considering eliminating the failed “gun-free zones” policy. They propose taking guns away from law-abiding citizens who have neither committed nor abetted any crimes, and who, in fact, more frequently use guns to prevent or stop crimes than criminals use guns to kill people.
The blood of men, women and children who died in “gun-free zones” is on the hands of the politicians who enabled killers to kill so many people. The longer President Obama and other politicians deny the failure of “gun-free zones” to protect people and the more they impose restrictions on law abiding citizens, the more complicit they are in the deaths of innocent people.
Opponents misstate ‘stand your ground’
To the editor:
I would like to clear up a misconception that has been published and republished in every paper that has covered the recent public hearing for House Bill 135, which would repeal parts of the so-called “Stand Your Ground” law in New Hampshire.
The primary sponsor of the bill, Representative Stephen Shurtleff, claimed in his testimony to the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee that part of the law he wants to repeal, RSA 627:1-a, protects someone from civil litigation if they accidentally injure or kill an innocent bystander while defending themselves. The law that he refers to is this:
“A person who uses force in self-protection or in the protection of other persons ..., in the protection of premises and property ..., in law enforcement ..., or in the care or welfare of a minor ..., is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator...” (emphasis added).
Throughout the entire proceedings, Rep. Shurtleff and other supporters of HB 135 claimed that under current law, innocent bystanders who are injured or killed have no legal recourse. This is a complete falsehood. Feel free to look it up yourself.
One finds themselves speculating whether Rep. Shurtleff and his co-sponsors and supporters simply haven’t read the law that they wish to repeal, or whether they are deliberately and blatantly misrepresenting the law to further their own cause. In either case, they have no business proposing legislation to “fix” something that isn’t broken, and so-called investigative journalists have no business parroting false information that is so easily verified.