Gun control laws are not a solution

The minute there is a shooting, there is a cry from many for more gun control. It seems the obvious solution. It isn't.

Very few have studied gun control like John R. Lott Jr., author of books, articles, and research papers on the subject. He states that everyone's reaction to crimes involving guns is to take the guns away. That doesn't work either.

Lott has found gun control has failed in England, Australia, Canada, and other countries that have tried it. In fact, crime rose sharply.

In England and Wales, where handguns have been banned, gun crimes doubled over a four-year period.

In Australia, after most firearms were banned, crime rates soared and violent crime rates doubled those in America.

The Canadian government spent over a billion dollars, 500 times the amount originally estimated, in implementing a registry that they admittedly say doesn't point to "...a single violent crime that had been solved through registration." In fact, gun crime increased after the implementation.

Lott supports his statements with very detailed statistical analyses. There are now 37 states that have right-to-carry laws after passing a criminal background check. He indicated that not only has violent crime fallen quicker in the U.S. than in Canada, but even faster in the right-to-carry states. He found states that have the biggest drop in violent crime rates are also the states with the fastest growth in gun ownership. Crime seems to thrive where there are "no-gun-zone" laws.

It is ironic that when gun control laws fail, politicians want to pass new laws rather than revise or eliminate current unworkable laws. Lott says it best when he says, "The problem is that law-abiding citizens obey the laws and criminals don't." Lott says "...right-to-carry laws lower crime..."

My question is: Could more guns mean less crime? This appears to be a paradox.

Leo A. Dietrich

Lake Villa