# Monday, January 16, 2006
« Police state benefits | Main | Quote of the day--Larry Keane »

Via Alphecca and Say Uncle this Washington Post editorial repeats a lie from a previous editorial.  I sometimes wonder if they repeat these lies on purpose or if they are just ignorant/careless/stupid:
As writer Jenny Price noted in a Dec. 25 op-ed in The Post, only 160 of the 12,000 guns used to kill people every year are employed in legitimate self-defense; guns in the home are used seven times more often for homicide than for self-defense.

I corrected Ms. Price in my previous post.  No need to do it again.  This editorial goes on to the expected conclusion.

Political long shot that it may be, a national ban on the general manufacture, sale and ownership of handguns ought be enacted. It would not pacify kids or adults with violent tendencies, and it might not curb general criminal activity markedly. But it might well save thousands of lives. Handgun exceptions could be made for federal, state and local law enforcement and military agencies; collectors of antique firearms; federally licensed handgun sporting clubs with certain safety procedures; security guard services; and licensed dealers, importers or manufacturers that are determined to be meeting those needs. Such a bill was proposed more than a decade ago by Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.), who has since died. "I hear people say it's a radical proposal," he said then. "Well, I think to have the current situation is radical. No other country has anything like it." He described slaughter by handguns as killing in record numbers, threatening education and pushing the high costs of education even higher. So what's new today?
I'll answer that question.  The data is even more overwhelming than it was a decade ago--weapon restrictions do not save lives.  They divert resources that would be better spent elsewhere.

Now, editors at the Washington Post, answer Just One Question.