More gun control laws does not mean less violence

Your July 7 editorial, "Stop providing the means to kill", left me a little confused as to what the author was trying to accomplish.

The blame, not surprisingly, was misplaced squarely upon the inanimate tool (guns), and upon many millions of peaceful law-abiding Americans (NRA and others) who haven't hurt anyone, rather than the criminal upon whom it belongs; but what action exactly was the author calling for? Yet more "reasonable" gun control?

There are currently well over 20,000 gun laws on the books in America, each one was sold to us as a "reasonable" panacea, each one has been equally ineffective in controlling violence. The Brady law, for instance, was billed as the means to keep guns out of criminal hands, even though all previous studies showed that, since it was already illegal for criminals to buy guns (that law passed over 30 years ago), they instead obtained them through theft or the black market.

Since Brady passed, the authorities still refuse to prosecute the felons who do attempt to buy guns, so if a purchase is denied, they can and do still buy them on the same streets where anyone can also buy illegal drugs - nothing has changed.

This is exactly what Nathaniel Smith did, this is exactly what he would have done if all the new "reasonable" gun control bills currently before Congress (not to mention every other bill proposed and wisely rejected over the last 20 years) had also been in effect.

Even if possession of all weapons were totally banned, the only people who would be effected are those of us who obey the law. Any fantasy that gun violence will be curbed by passage of yet more ineffective laws, up to and including even a total ban, is simple kindergarten level naiveté.

Your editorial author's wishful thinking aside, passing even more gun control laws will indeed make our streets safer... for violent criminals like Smith maybe - but certainly not for the rest of us.

Scott Benjamin

Senior Staff Technician

UA Optical Sciences Center