12 March 2008

Retired Ohio Attorney Wishes For A World Without Handguns

"Handguns are necessary for those involved in law enforcement, and I have no problem with hunters owning rifles. But with those exceptions, this would be a better place if there were no more handguns in America."

The words of writer and retired attorney Jack LeMoult, who resides in Xenia, Ohio.

Mr. LeMoult, all I can say is the reason women want to carry a handgun is because a police officer is too heavy. An old saying, but appropriate, considering the tone of your essay.

Read his full column here. And consider that much of his commentary, though I assume it is from the heart, is a re-hashing of tired sound bytes.

For example, the proposal to let concealed handgun license holders, if licensed by their respective states, carry sidearms on campus for protection: "Such a dimwitted idea fails, of course, to take account of the fact that there are still many mentally deranged students on college campuses who do not yet own guns."

Whew! That is an incredibly arrogant indictment of all college students. Mr. LeMoult, in his effort to frighten readers, fails to mention that the proposal would include professors as well. Does he make the same sweeping accusations of against distinguished professors and their mental faculties?

Here is the original column from Sandy Froman and Ken Blackwell that pushed Mr. LeMoult to the edge. Call it your required reading.

I don't know where else to comment on Mr. LeMoult's piece, however. There are too many bones to pick with his commentary, and my head is swimming as midnight approaches.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

If handguns are useful, required ,or "law enforcement", then what is self-defense except "law enforcement"?

And how does disarming the law-abiding aid in lower crime, or higher observance of the law ("law enforcement", since more pay attention to the laws)?

Please, someone, anyone, show me the facts...