Daily Hampshire Gazette - Established 1786
Hi 25° | Lo 7°

Harry Vandoloski: Gun control laws hinder the lawful

To the editor:

Much of the gun violence we hear so much about is cultivated by well-meaning legislators. U.S. Rep. Richard Neal has said he was voting for gun control because he had been mayor of a big city. “It’s as simple as that,” he was quoted as saying. “The havoc that the concealable pistol does on a Saturday night is unbelievable.”

The very important point that is missing here is the distinction between lawful and responsible gun owners and criminals. Those predators he speaks of are already breaking laws. They cannot legally own a gun, they cannot legally hold people up, they cannot legally shoot people. Adding another law for them to break will do nothing to change their actions and will serve only to hinder lawful gun owners who may want to retain the option of being responsible for the safety of their families.

If one were to study just a little history of the issue, the effects of “gun control” become very clear. In the 1970s, Washington, D.C., decided to become a very safe city by banning all handguns. The result was a dramatic increase in violent crime as criminals knew there would be no resistance since the lawful gun owners had all turned in their handguns. Also in the 1970s, Florida decided to make it much easier for lawful gun owners to “carry concealed.” The result was a dramatic decrease in violent crime since the possibility of a victim having the means to defend herself caused predators to become less bold.

These “gun control” laws serve only to hinder lawful and responsible gun owners who would increase the safety of society. Those laws do nothing to deter predators “wreaking havoc” since those people follow no laws.

Harry Vandoloski


Legacy Comments4

The ignorance of of these comments is stunning. "There's no reason to assume that people with registered guns don't use them to commit crimes. If it's easy to buy a registered gun, that's what criminals will do. Why not?" First and foremost, no criminal goes in to legally purchase a firearm. Why? Because systems are in place to ensure that criminals can NOT purchase firearms legally. Obviously you have never tried to purchase a firearm. At the state level, MA requires that a person have an FID (Firearms Identification Card) to even pick up a rifle or shotgun at a store. A person must also presnet an FID card to purchase rifle or shotgun ammo. On top of that, at the national level, a NICS background check is run. So, the state checks you out and then the feds check you out. And that's for only rifles and shotguns. To purchase a handgun in MA, you must apply for a permit through your local Chief of Police. MA is a "shall issue" state - meaning that if your local Chief of Police doesn't like you or your family, for example, you can be denied. But, assuming that your Chief approves you to exercise a Constitutional right, again, the state of MA checks you out. When you go to purchase a handgun the NICS check is run on you again. We MUST have a universal background check NOW. It's called NICS. The other completely laughable comment is "There's nothing about registering a gun that makes it traceable if used in a crime." defies even the remotest sniff test. REGISTRATION means, ummmm, to "register" your firearm - that includes serial number, your name and address, when and where you purchased it. Regarding Travon Martin - facts are coming out - such as his previous encounters with the law and the photos of Zimmerman that backup his story and that Trayvon's girlfriend lied under oath about their conversation prior to the shooting. ALL evidence points to self-defense by Zimmerman. Now regarding WalterKrez's comment: Concealed carry is the law in 49 states. Only Illinois prevents it's citizens from carrying concealed - and Chicago is the murder capital of the country. Coincidence? EVERY state, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, that has passed concealed carry laws for lawful citizens has seen violent crime, including gun related crime, plummet. Even Washington DC saw a drop of 1/3 in violent crimes within 30 days of the Heller vs. DC decision. Criminals, by their definition, do not follow the law. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. When a criminal KNOWS that their victim will be unarmed they are emboldened to commit more crime. When criminals face the possibility of facing an armed victim, they are far less likely to commit the crime. FACTS PROVE IT. Facts from the National Academy of Sciences. Facts from the Centers for Disease Control. Facts from FBI crime statistics. And facts from empirical statistical studies such as that done by Prof. John Lott Jr.

1. There's no reason to assume that people with registered guns don't use them to commit crimes. If it's easy to buy a registered gun, that's what criminals will do. Why not? There's nothing about registering a gun that makes it traceable if used in a crime. 2. Florida's gun laws: Trayvon Martin. All that needs to be said.

There can be no 'lawful' without laws. All laws hinder the lawful.

Concealed gun carriers are uninsured, non bonded, are not sworn polce and are under no governmental rules or regs for when or if to pull their weapon or to use it in public. Others have no idea who they are or what they're up to, including police. This 2nd ammendment stuff is creating havoc and danger for the general public and for police agencies, 2nd ammendment is not worth the paper it's written on!

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.