Now in discussing the merits of handguns, some have suggested to me that while camping, handguns are vital tools.

To shoot bears in case of attack, they say is a necessary and vital use of handguns. Further than that nobody can think of any others.

A simple solution, it seems to me, is to stay away from bears. But I am a simple man.

Despite the pro-bear hunting argument, annual gun deaths in this country are astoundingly large, especially compared to European and Asian countries, which for the most part have few gun deaths.

But don't be fooled, there is absolutely no connection between the lack of gun deaths in other countries and the fact that those same countries do not allow private handgun ownership. I know there is no connection because my government, specifically those in the Republican Party, has told me so.

To imagine yearly gun deaths in this country, think of everyone you have ever met. Now in your minds eye shoot them, then repeat 3 times and you have maybe taken care of the same number of people that will be killed this year by guns.

Of course there are pseudo-legitimate arguments for the right to gun ownership, namely the second amendment to the constitution.

Never mind the fact they were talking about state militias which were disbanded over 100 years ago, and never mind that the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld every restriction put on guns ever put before them.

Never mind the fact that U.S. v. Cruishank found that the second amendment applies to federal law only.

And never mind that evidence supporting lower crime comes from open gun laws, is often flawed, non-statistical, unscientific work, and authors such as John Lott, who's work is often used as evidence supporting gun ownership, is the best data the radical right can find.
Lott's work is so thorough that there are claims that a key survey Lott used is simply made up.

At www.timlambert.org/lott/ gun supporters can find many of the egregious flaws in Lott's work. There are simply too many to list here.

But, logic has never been the strength of a gun supporter. If there is a room with 50 people in it, and one person with a gun, decides to shoot at those 50, chances are many of those people are going to be seriously wounded or killed. There are two ways to counter the balance of power in this situation.

One: give someone else a gun. Of course this other person may successfully ward of the original shooter, thereby limiting the casualties. Of course, for this to happen the defender would need to have sufficient gun training and be ready to kill on a whim.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I might, if someone began shooting people in my vicinity, find it difficult to pull out a concealed weapon, take cover, load the weapon and then shoot the gunman.

I'm sure there are people out there with enough training to do just that, but I would believe they are few and far between. After all, this is real life, not a Die Hard movie.

Now for option two: Handguns and semiautomatic weapons are banned from citizen use. The gunman now legally carries, at worst, a single shot rifle, cutting his rate of fire by a tenth, allowing many people to escape, or if heroics win the day, allowing a group of unarmed citizens to attack the shooter between shots.

Seems like an easy choice to me, but then again I am the same person who would shoot at road signs with a 22 handgun.