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.