Debating the Needless

New Jersey governor Chris Christie was in my town today campaigning for the likely Republican candidate for governor, Tom Foley.  Christie is the head of the Republican Governors' Association, and in that role he often campaigns for GOP gubernatorial candidates around the country.  There was no news coming out of the visit, nor was any expected.  What was most interesting, however, was that there were some protesters at one of Christie's stops who came to demonstrate their opposition to Christie's recent veto of a bill in New Jersey that would have reduced the size of magazines allowed for guns.  The anti-gun forces trotted out a few of the families who lost children in Newtown.  But why bother?  The spokesman for the group told the local paper that Connecticut had the second most stringent gun control laws in the nation and that we consider it very important to keep things that way and we want Christie to know that.

Now let's take a moment to think about that.  Connecticut has the second most stringent gun control laws, but we had a terrible massacre of little school children and the killer used only guns that were all legally obtained.  In other words, our stringent gun control laws did not stop the killings.  And if we had a law at the time that limited the size of magazines to ten bullets (like the proposed NJ law), would it have stopped the massacre in Newtown?  NO!

I am not advocating or opposing gun control legislation here.  I am just pointing out that stringent gun control laws that are fully enforced does not and will not stop gun violence.  We have the proof of that right here in Connecticut.

Why bother holding a needless debate.  There are more than enough real issues to go around.