In “Point Austin
” [News, Feb. 15], Kent Anschutz says, "What's so puzzling to me, is why the law-abiding gun-owner thinks that to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill somehow threatens them." What puzzles me is where exactly Mr. Anschutz thinks gun control is
keeping guns away from criminals. Is it California, where absurdist gun control laws somehow don't stop 1,200-1,300 gun murders every year – twice as many as gun-crazy Texas? Is it Chicago, with 339 gun murders in 2010, when the Supreme Court ruled the city's handgun ban unconstitutional? It's almost as if criminals aren't obeying the law. Shocking.
There are more than 350 million
guns in America, and it's childish to think that banning X or Y gun or accessory will magically make the millions in circulation just disappear. Firearm retailers reported 3-5 years
worth of sales in three months
; unless you invest in magic-wand technology, you simply are not going to get rid of all those evil bogeyman rifles that scare you so much (despite being responsible for less than a quarter as many homicides as hands and feet
). Does "doing the same thing over and over again and always expecting a different result" not define "crazy" anymore? You can't end gun violence by making guns illegal any more than you can end drug-related violence by making drugs illegal. Until everyone has a job, decent health care, a home, and food on the table, violence will keep happening
. Rule four of basic firearms safety is "always be sure of your target and what is beyond it"; gun control is aiming at an inanimate object and hitting my constitutional right to defend myself instead.
I suggest naming the inevitable hysterical anti-gun bill the Volstead Gun Control Act, to place it in proper intellectual context.