don’t fret, Barry, the antigunners will get around to wanting to ban shot guns eventually, after all they want _EVERYTNING that goes “bang” to dissappear from the face of the earth…………… and don’t let them tell you any different!
_____________________________________________-

Letter: Shotguns are far more lethal than combat weapons
Date: Sep 22, 2006 9:03 AM
PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen
DATE: 2006.09.22
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
PNAME: Letters
PAGE: A13
BYLINE: Barry Glasgow
SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen
WORD COUNT: 257

————————————————————————
——–

Shotguns are far more lethal than combat weapons

————————————————————————
——–

Re: Total ban needed, Sept. 20.

Letter-writer C. J. Carson is wrong that banning semi-automatic firearms
will do anything more than further marginalize their legal owners. He
claims that “semi-automatic weapons make killing and wounding in large
numbers all too easy for anyone.”

In a 1991 newspaper article, Independence Institute gun-policy expert
David Kopel wrote that “mass murders [in France and Britain] tend to be
committed with conventional hunting shotguns instead, and such shootings
produce a victim fatality rate much higher than rifles or handguns.
Wound ballistics expert Martin Fackler explains this irony — that a
hunting gun can be more deadly in a killer’s hands than a modern combat
rifle — by noting that the latter are actually designed not to kill.
They fire small bullets in order to wound the enemy, forcing his side to
expend resources rescuing and caring for him. In contrast, as one
surgery textbook observes, shotgun injuries at close range are as deadly
as a cannon.”

Had the Montreal killer used his shotgun, there would have been a lot
more than one killed.

C. J. Carson tosses in another red herring: “When was the last time
there was a mass murder committed by a knife-wielding maniac?” In 2002,
a man armed with a knife killed eight people and wounded four others at
a high school in Ruzhou, China.

He is buying into pervasive anti-gun activists’ logic that has had undue
influence in this debate. They have consistently gotten it wrong, and
it’s time for a more reasoned approach.

Barry Glasgow,
Woodlawn