by Riverheart
[email protected]

Let's take a little look at the effects of the anti-rights (I refuse to call them "anti-gun") movement's attempts to ban inexpensive handguns.

They claim that this is an attempt to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. This is a good mission, one with which I concur, but is this the true effect of their stated method of affecting their stated mission? I don't think so.

Criminals, by their very nature, are going to get guns in an illegal manner. (See The Myth of Black Market Guns by Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen.) Chances are, the guns they get are not going to be inexpensive. They're going to be pricey, high-quality handguns, probably stolen from law-abiding folks who saved for a long time to buy those guns. "Hot" guns, like "hot" cars, are going to be less expensive to criminals, and only available to criminals, because they're stolen.

So criminals can get guns, good ones, the same way they do right now: they steal them, or they buy stolen merchandise. Little changes under a ban on inexpensive handguns - as far as the criminals are concerned.

Who, then, is prevented from buying guns?

Grandma.

The elderly widow, who lives in a neighborhood which has seen better days. This is the woman the anti-rights movement is disarming.

This woman depends on her Social Security check, or her late husband's pension, or both. She has a small fixed income. She may have a good deal of trouble affording groceries these days; chances are good that she can't afford a car to go and buy them. 

You see her on the bus. You see her waiting at the bus stop in the rain, plastic hood covering her silver hair. She may have a cane; she may do well without one. If she has a cane, it's probably for walking, not for self-defense. 

One thing she definitely can't afford is a move to a better, safer neighborhood. Where is she going to get the money for a $600 handgun?

She needs the gun, too. You see, a gang of toughs has been hanging around her apartment building, preying on other elderly folks like her. She has a few "good things" from earlier in her life: her wedding ring (which she never takes off); her china, perhaps; a lovely shawl from when she was a young woman and went dancing with the man who became her husband; a few other little keepsakes of a life well and happily lived. They're important to her, but not terribly valuable on a stolen-goods market; nonetheless, she's heard about other elderly people being robbed in their homes not long ago, and she's concerned.

One more thing. Someone's been rifling her mailbox recently, and she's had to do without because a check or two has been missing. She's taken to waiting for her mail when the checks are due, but she's noticed that the gang seems to know when her checks are due also. Oh, I suppose she could get direct deposit; the government and most pension companies will make that available to her. But that means she's got to make a trip to the bank to get her cash, before she goes to the grocery store, and that's another hour or so round-trip on the bus.

She's real, all right; this is not a hypothetical situation. I see her, and many like her, on the public transit systems of major metropolitan areas. I lived near her in small towns (and went out of my way to give her rides). She clings to independence; she refuses to go to an assisted living center - and why should she have to? She's perfectly competent, capable of living on her own, as long as she can be safe. This is the woman the anti-rights movement, with their emphasis on banning good, well-made, inexpensive handguns, is trying to disarm.

They say they're disarming criminals; they aren't. Cutting down on gun theft will help disarm criminals. What they're doing is disarming grandma, and that ought, by rights, to be a crime in and of itself.

Also from Riverheart: Don't Call Me a Gun Nut