Will more stringent gun control laws create less crime? Will stiffer gun control deter known criminals from committing their heinous acts? Gun Control is law designed to impose legal measures to license, control, or restrict the ownership of firearms by members of the public. That means the governments only responsibility is and should be to determine to the best of their ability, which citizens are able to get a permit to own and/or carry a firearm. They should do background checks for any mental illnesses, past criminal activity including petty crime, and whether or not they contribute to the community; i.e., having a job or being a legal United States citizen. That is it. Government should not be able to dictate that a normal law abiding citizen who owns a gun for personal protection of home and property is responsible for all the crime. We should not have stricter gun control laws because it will lead to more crime, not less crime.
Gun rights and gun control have long histories. Although both sides in the gun debate have claimed to have history on their side, each has presented a favored version of the past. According to the United States Constitution; Bill Of Rights; Amendment 2 (as written on the 15th day of December 1791), “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Many say that “well regulated” means we need to have strong laws in place to prevent people from obtaining guns. Tough regulation will mean we are tough on crime.
Others say “well regulated” means the people are responsible for following laws designed to keep everybody safe; completing a gun safety course and taking your own God-given responsibility to protect yourself and your family by participating in constant training on the use of guns. The after-class training is an idea staunchly supported and dictated repeatedly by the National Rifel Association, whose instructors give the government required course on gun safety. People who believe proper training is the key to a well regulated militia believe that stricter control by the federal government is indeed an infringement. On both sides of the issue there are supporters that claim the constitution is in their favor. Does the word militia apply to the armed services, or does it mean the people collectively have the right to be trained on how to protect them? As long as Americans have had guns there have been regulations governing their use. Without a government hand, there would have been no Minutemen gathering on the town greens at Lexington and Concord.
The gun control advocates in Washington would say that more laws reducing the number of guns would be reasonable laws. The logic is if they can control how many people can obtain guns and how many guns they can obtain, well than obviously there would be lesser and lesser guns, and therefore less crime. Saul Cornell who is a gun control advocate and who has written on the subject says, “The right to be free from the threat of gun violence deserves as much respect as the right to bear arms.” Mr. Cornell also points out that Most gun owners support reasonable gun control laws themselves.
Additional gun control laws will be useless and will not deter or reduce crime. Indeed, guns are one tool people use to commit crimes; rape, stabbings, vehicular homicide, drug dealing, drunk driving, murder, burglary, chemical abuse, child molestation, and abuse of animals are all crimes, none of which require a gun to do them. Furthermore, how many sane and fine upstanding citizens commit those heinous acts with guns or without them? The smoking gun answer (pun intended) is, none of them.
A few years ago a woman was stabbed in a suburban park setting at a West Hartford reservoir on her morning run in Central Connecticut; I find it decidedly difficult to believe more stringent gun control laws would have prevented the death of this poor woman at the hands of a knife