Banning handguns makes no sense
By Jeff Moorman

No offense to the author of the column "Cincinnati should ban handguns" (July 27), but Robert B. Newman's arguments make little sense. Banning handguns, while not only unconstitutional, is highly impractical. It is a criminal's dream. The fewer people who have guns, the fewer can defend themselves when attacked by said criminal…

But let's suppose that the city organizes a giant handgun buy-back program, and sympathetic gun owners decide to hand over their guns for cash. Who's going to trade in their guns? Is an armed criminal going to turn in his gun if it's the means to his/her ends? No.

Let us say all handguns are wiped out. Not a citizen or criminal has one. The only individuals who possess them are military and police officials. What's going to stop a criminal from using a knife? What do you do then? Start a campaign for knife control?

The problems don't reside within the guns themselves. A gun, like a knife, baseball bat or steel pipe, is ineffective until an irresponsible or mischievous person gets behind it…

If you want to ban anything, ban poor parenting. Ban the illegal sales of handguns. Ban gang activity. Ban crime. Owning a handgun is not a crime. Every law-abiding American has the right to own one should they choose. I can assure you that the vast majority of those who legally own handguns would tell you that they hope they never have to use them in self-defense. Making generalizations about handguns and their owners is insulting to those who obey the laws.

Gun control advocates should stop wasting time on handguns and focus on the real problem - the criminals themselves.