As I read the letter written by Dick Swenson — excellent letter by the way — indicating we need more gun-control laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it occurred to me we are asking the wrong question.
Instead of enacting more gun-control laws that have historically proven to be ineffective and only serve to punish law abiding citizens, why not enact more criminal-control laws.
When I see the man who shot the young girl in Chicago had multiple arrests for gun-related crimes, I wondered why he was still on the streets.
This seems to be a reoccurring theme throughout our country, criminals commit crimes with guns, get arrested for those crimes and spend only a short time in jail before they are let out to commit more crimes.
To me, this says we have more of a criminal-control problem rather than a gun-control problem. As I said in a previous letter, guns are here and always will be regardless of what laws are passed so we ask, how do we keep them out of the hands of criminals?
It seems to me the answer is more simple than we make it. Enact stricter laws that make gun-related crimes more serious so these criminals are put away for longer periods.
This might not deter them from committing more crimes when they do get out, but it will be delayed and it may make future would-be criminals think twice.
So, the question I ask is, do we need stricter gun-control laws that infringe on a constitutional right, have proven not to work and only impact law-abiding citizens? Or do we need stricter criminal-control laws that only impact those who are committing these crimes?