Published: June 15, 2007 01:27 pm            

Gun plan aims at wrong target

Crime and violence are problems that not only affect our state’s largest cities but also have spilled into rural and suburban towns across the commonwealth.

Gov. Ed Rendell thinks the answer to this problem is simple: Add more gun-control laws to free our streets of crime.

Don’t be misled by the governor or any of his supporters. Rendell recently joined with mayors and members of the General Assembly to support legislation that aims to take away our Second Amendment rights and punish law-abiding citizens. One proposal includes limiting gun purchases to one firearm a month, a plan based on speculation with no proof or support of decreasing crime.

Maryland, Virginia and California have one-gun-a-month laws. In 2005, all three states had homicide rates higher than the national average.

Studies by Syracuse University and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have shown that all one-gun-a-month states have more guns exported to crime in other states than Pennsylvania does. South Carolina, the first state to enact a one-gun-a-month law, repealed it as ineffective.

Even Rendell’s Commission to Address Gun Violence was unable to reach a consensus on whether this law would help to decrease crime.

Almost every state pre-empts localities from instituting their own gun restrictions. No citizen wants to run a gauntlet of patchwork gun laws every time he or she travels. Law-abiding citizens should not have their rights oppressed just because of where they reside.

Disarming the victims of crime and violence will not stop criminals from illegally possessing firearms. Criminals do not apply for concealed-carry permits or acquire their guns through legitimate means. Enacting another law will not make someone who doesn’t follow the current laws start obeying new ones.

Gun bans and other misguided forms of gun control give the advantage to criminals because they know unarmed victims are more vulnerable. Washington, D.C., is the model of total gun control – and the example of a crime rate that is out of control.

We need to look at common-sense solutions. Rendell’s answer to decreasing crime should focus on enforcing the laws already on the books. Pennsylvania has many, strict gun laws, especially on straw purchases of firearms (in which a person ineligible to own a gun acquires one through a proxy buyer).

A solution that many state representatives have supported would increase funding for law enforcement across the state. Our cities lack the ability to put and keep criminals behind bars. A key to reducing crime is to prosecute criminals relentlessly, impose tough sentences with no time off for good behavior and stop plea-bargaining away the illegal-weapons charges.

Philadelphia Chief of Detectives Joseph Fox said in a recent article, “Until we’re ready to strictly enforce the current laws, there is no reason for tougher ones. (Police) get some guns off the street, only to be faced with the same people back on the street within days or weeks to commit the same type of crime over and over again.”

Adding more gun-control laws will only take guns away from law-abiding citizens; firearms will be left in the hands of violent criminals.

Instead, we should support programs that put more police on the streets and do away with plea bargaining and early parole for violent gun criminals.



Melody Zullinger is executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, based in Harrisburg.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.