By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Restrictive gun control laws reduce safety
Placeholder Image

Editor, Manteca Bulletin,

I read the quotes from Senator Dianne Feinstein in the Sunday, July 10, 2011 “They Said It” column.  I am always bemused when someone intelligent does not understand the implications of what he/she said.  In particular, I am referring to the quote, “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

Clearly the Senator has not paid attention to the facts.  While California is rated the best of the 50 states for gun control laws according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, we are third highest in deaths per 1,000 citizens due to homicide by firearms despite our restrictive laws.  Meanwhile, our neighbors in Arizona and Nevada enjoy a much lower homicide rate and considerably lower number of restrictive regulations on firearms.  Professor John Lott sums it up neatly in his research entitled “More guns, less crime: understanding crime and gun-control laws.”  More restrictive gun control does not provide better societal safety.  Gun laws do not inhibit criminal behavior.

Our emergency response system – police and emergency – is already over taxed.  The average response time is around 10 minutes for a 911 call.  How many unarmed people can be killed in 10 minutes by one crazed shooter, or one seriously psychopathic criminal?  You need look no further than to the vast majority of mass homicides in “gun free zones” like Colombine.

Personally, give me a neighborhood where all of my neighbors have and are trained in the use of firearms.  I will be much safer than in a neighborhood where firearms are banned.  I would much rather be safe than “feel safe”.

Michael L. Kimball
Major, U.S. Army Retired
July 11, 2011