Free Speech Forum

It is understandable that after events like those May 30th the knee-jerk reaction is to blame guns and advocate increased gun control. However, in a political climate where our freedoms are constantly being restricted I would urge you to reconsider your position.

Firstly, one cannot directly compare Great Britain to the US and say that more gun ownership means more gun crime. To counter your point, one could look at Switzerland. They have one of the world's highest rates of gun ownership, yet one of the lowest rates of gun crime.

Secondly, you create the limitation that guns are only for home defense. This is wrong however, as the second amendment was created by our founders to ensure self-defense in a much broader sense. This includes threats that could be a deranged man in a caf or some other public place, an invasion by a foreign power, or against our own government should it turn tyrannical. Perhaps if someone had been armed at Caf Racer the loss of lives would have been limited on May 30th.

In examining sourcing, most criminals obtain guns from family members, friends, or in street buys. These methods for obtaining a firearm are already illegal, so the problem isnt a lack of laws but rather we cannot enforce pre-existing ones. How will more poorly-enforced laws change things? Unfortunately, accidents and crime happen. Gun control of the caliber you suggest will only disarm law-abiding citizens while criminals will continue to ignore the law.

Devon Cole UW alumnus, class of 2011

See the original post here:
Free Speech Forum