After reading the July 23 editorial, "Containing the spread of guns," I have a couple of observations. If police confiscated 458 guns last year, but only 204 from "gangsters," does that mean that up to 254 guns were confiscated from good citizens who just wanted to keep themselves and their property safe? If so, in my opinion, that amounts to collusion by the state to increase the number of unarmed victims available to criminals.
Who, then, is more criminal? The "gangster" who admits that he is there to steal from you? Or the police officer who ensures that you are left vulnerable to the "gangster"?
Here is a simple observation that every government person I have ever spoken with ignores: Weapons control (read: theft by the state) laws do nothing to stop or reduce crime. They cause law-abiding people not to arm themselves. The bad guys -- who care not for the law -- do arm themselves. The result is that when a bad guy knocks down a door, the good guy is reduced to bringing a butter knife to a gunfight. And the government is all for this for reasons I have yet to comprehend.
The logical answer is to abolish antiweapons laws and enact laws such as tax cuts for weapons proficiency. Encourage the population to be armed and criminals will leave the area in droves. Think about it: If you were a criminal, would you rather attack a target that may be just as likely to kill you, or an unarmed target that will likely wet his pants?
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.