The tragedy is that honest, law-abiding citizens, like Elizabeth, fearing for their lives, do not have the opportunity to protect themselves from superior and deadly force.
Everyone saw this coming, but the law was unable to prevent these 3 senseless deaths.
I can anticipate all the counterarguments, many of them focused on expanding gun-control regulations, or “toughening” stalking and intimidation laws, or providing more funds for battered women’s shelters.
The fact of the matter is our existing laws were powerless to prevent these murders. How many were broken in commission of this crime? A father’s concern, prescient as it turns out, was not enough. Restraining orders didn’t help. Neither did our strictest in the nation gun laws. There was insufficient “cause” to ask for police protection (in MA, police have no legal obligation to protect you from harm, only to stop a crime. Yelling and intimidation aren’t a crime. You’re on your own, Elizabeth.)
We already have all of these laws and regulations, and more, on the books.
I’m sure there will be many BMGer’s who believe under no practical or even moral circumstance would possessing a handgun be justified, and they are entitled to their opinion.
Blame New Hampshire or Georgia if you want. But that would be avoid the real issue: do I have the right to defend myself, with deadly force, in my home and in public?
If only Elizabeth Cann had a gun, if only she had been able to protect herself from superior force intent on executing her, she and her children would be alive today. RIP.
when life here becomes totally unbearable one will have the ability to end it all.
The potential that she could probably would suffice to prevent many of these situations in the first place.
Did you actually read the story that you linked to? The perpetrator legally owned the gun that he had allegedly used in committing the murders. How is your linked-to story an argument for legal gun ownership in MA? The perp’s ownership in MA was legal.
<
p>
Yee gads, the lack of critical thinking that some people engage in in MA.
This was referred to as “Mutually Assured Destruction” — let’s make the world safer by making it more dangerous.
<
p>
This is what happens when fear takes hold of the rational mind and doesn’t let go.
…I will now say what has been clear from the post (above) all along. The poster is pleading an “absolute” 2d amendment right to own a handgun, irrespective of whether the 2d amendment was meant to allow anyone and everyone to garnish a pistol.
<
p>
But that’s idiotic. The likelihood is that, if the mother had a pistol, she would not have been able to stop the murders.
<
p>
I have seen this kind of thing too often on wingnut web sites not to recognize it for what it is.
He had a restraining order pulled on him. That gives the police the right to come and collect all his weapons. Permits get revoked, guns picked up. Where were the cops on this?
<
p>
The black powder weapon was in his possession under a “Curio & Relic” exemption. You can purchase an antique weapon with this exemption.
<
p>
However, he needed a FID to purchase ammo which he did not have or should have been revoked when the restraining order was pulled.
<
p>
Furthermore, he’d need a “carry permit” to transport the weapon in operable form. You cannot drive around with it loaded.
<
p>
Know the law, smart ass.
He had a restraining order pulled on him
<
p>
…restraining orders are not self-executing, nor are “carry permit” licenses. In other words, they rely on the belief that the person who is restrained will obey the order. Obviously, more than a few do not.
<
p>
Regarding your comment about ammo, I have no idea what his gun was or what the ammo that was required was, but I will tell you another of my little stories. When I was a child 40 years ago, I helped my father make 58 caliber lead bullets for his black powder reproduction civil war era musket. I know how to make ammo. I also know how to load black powder guns. And I know how to clean them. The point, lest it be misunderstood, is that you don’t have to purchase ammo in order to load a black powder gun. Is that succinct enough for you?
and if the victim had a legal gun she could have protected herself.
Is there some reason that Ms. Cann was barred from legally owning a handgun if she wanted to? Lots of people in MA do (including the shooter, as raj notes upthread, who legally owned the antique revolver used in the attack). You may have to go through some red tape, but you can do it. And if she had owned a gun, she would have been justified in using it under these circumstances. Under current MA law,
<
p>
<
p>
There’s a corresponding provision protecting the shooter from civil lawsuits.
<
p>
So what are you asking for?
Perhaps the please is for a chicken in every pot and a handgun in every home?
That would be “plea” not “please,” of course.
…even if the mother had had a handgun, would she have been able to wield it effectively?
<
p>
I am, of course, thinking of the elderly lady in, I believe it was, Atlanta, who was shot to death by marauding police officers who barged into her home in an erroneous execution of a search warrant (the warrant was to have been executed next door). When the police slammed down her door, she tried to defend her abode with a pistol. The police shot her to death.
accompanying this goofy post…
<
p>
Mass License to Carry
Get certified to carry in MA with our Basic Firearms Safety Course
http://www.sigarms.com/educationtraining
<
p>
Owning a handgun in Mass is plenty legal. Unfortunately.
<
p>
But I must say I really envy the comparable crime rates in Florida and Texas where you can carry concealed weapons.
<
p>
Florida VC per 100000 = 702 in 2005
Massachusetts = 457 (below average nationally)
Texas = 529
Those statistics are for ALL violent crimes, regardless of whether they involved a firearm or not.
..with our Basic Firearms Safety Course…
<
p>
it may be surprising to you, but I don’t have any problem with a basic firearms safety course, any more than I have a problem with a safe driving course requirement to be able to get a drivers license.
<
p>
With the pervasiveness of firearms in the US, a basic safety course should be mandatory to be able to possess one. I actually had such a course, and it taught me not only how to use a firearm, but also when to refrain from using it. It’s unfortunate that the NRA has become little more than a political pandering operation, but they used to do good work in regards firearm safety.
Elizabeth Cann could have applied for a license to carry. If she had been denied a license to carry a handgun she could have at least obtained an FID card which would have allowed her to purchase all kinds of weapons including shotguns and rifles and plenty of ammo. Apparently she did not avail herself of the ?opportunity.?
<
p>
I think you were trying to say that if the criminal did not have such ready access to guns Ms. Cann would be alive today. On that point you are dead on.