Criminals won't obey gun laws

I keep seeing in the news where some people want more "gun control." Their ultimate goal seems to be a law that bans the possession of a gun by anybody.
 
For those who may think a criminal is going to read about such a law and say to himself, "Oh, my goodness! I can't have a gun so I guess I can't be an armed robber anymore," I would ask these people, "What is the definition of a criminal?"

A criminal is someone who does not obey the law. If he is not concerned about the laws against murder, armed robbery, forcible rape, home invasion, carjacking, drive-by shooting, ad infinitum, why is he going to obey this gun law?

The only thing this will really accomplish is to leave the law-abiding citizens, who will obey the law and turn in their guns, completely at the mercy of armed criminals. All law-abiding citizens should have the right to own a gun if they choose.

Get a gun, learn how to use it and put it in a safe place where it will stay and never harm anyone as long as it is left alone. It will never, on its own, commit a crime.

Our laws should be directed at the person who picks the gun up and uses it illegally, not at the gun itself.

Some people seem to think we don't need a gun because we have the police. The average response time to a 911 call is 22 minutes. An armed criminal can cause a lot of havoc in 22 minutes.

The question here is, is it better to have a gun and not need it, or to need a gun and not have it?

ARTHUR PIRKLE
Yuma