By John Waterhouse
Once again, gun control seems to be on the minds of various politicians and media personnel. Obviously, we are all shocked when someone commits a horrific crime using a weapon. Certain people immediately come to the conclusion that gun control will end or at least diminish this kind of occurrence. But I have a hard time believing that if a law is enacted upon requiring all individuals to surrender their guns that the criminals will all line up and surrender their guns. I think it is common sense to assume criminals will ignore this law just like they tend to ignore other laws. The problem with gun control is that a higher proportion of law-abiding citizens will surrender their guns compared to the proportion of criminals who will surrender their guns. Therefore, the net result would be that armament would be skewed in favor of crime.
In the past, I remember reading on a few occasions where small towns in the South mandated, through ordinance, that all local residents must own a gun. Supposedly, the result, after a period of time, was that crime in those towns substantially went down. Now I haven’t studied this and cannot say for sure, but it would seem logical that crime would diminish as this kind of law would skew the arming ratio in the favor of law-abiding citizens.
The best solution to this problem is stiffer penalties and mandated minimum penalties for gun abuse. If we could speed up the process of court hearings and judicial processing, this would help too. But when it comes to this problem, let’s not make an emotional decision that only benefits the criminal side of the equation and only makes matters worse.