Dear Editor,
Gun amnesty is a good political ploy to satisfy citizens that politicians who are trying their best to curb crime. But isn’t it just a show? Politicians know that bad guys will always have guns and that means gun amnesty is going to leave the good guys defenseless eventually.
Many countries have tried gun amnesty policies such as the United States and Trinidad and Tobago. They pay loads of money to try to buy back guns from the streets to no avail. Why would a bandit return a gun and get three hundred dollars when he could probably obtain a loot of $300 000 by robbing store? Before we talk gun amnesty let’s talk gun economics.
Crime does not decrease because of gun amnesty. It is quite the opposite. In States such as Texas and Arizona in America where they support the right to have guns in places such as schools, work zones, restaurants, banks, gas stations and homes, crimes have decreased tremendously. Most people who fight for gun amnesty hang on to the few isolated cases here and there to uphold their cases, where, mishandling of the gun might have led to an unwarranted death of victims such as children, but, these are the exceptions not the rule.
Responsible people should have the right to carry guns especially in countries where crime keeps spiraling out of control and police are unable to stop it. Criminals will most likely attack a neighborhood that is a gun free zone.
What’s so wrong to have a political program to have a gun zone neighbourhood? Statistics obtained by FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that more guns equal less crime in a gun zone area. A criminal is less likely to enter a neighbourhood where he knows that all the people can defend themselves.
Sincerely,
Vassan Ramracha