Gun control punishes the many for the crime of the few. And in our contemporary situation, following the crime at Sandy Hook Elementary, the gun control Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) plans to propose would literally punish a hundred million people for the crime of one.

In 2005, Gallup polls told us that 30% of Americans owned guns and that they majority of them did so for personal protection. By 2012, that ownership figure seems to have risen to 40% or more Americans owning guns. Still, two/thirds of these gun owners say the reason they purchased a gun was for personal defense. 

That indicates one million gun owners (at least).

On Dec. 14, Adam Lanza took guns that didn't belong to him and committed horrific crimes with them.

And Feinstein and the Democrats are reacting to this crime by pushing new laws, requirements, and controls on the 100 million gun owners who had nothing to do with this crime. This is just one more troubling, and immoral, aspect of gun control--it punishes the many (in this case, 100 million gun owners) for the crime of the one.

Of course, Democrats are quick to point out this isn't just about Sandy Hook. It's also the Aurora Shooting and the Clackamas Town Center shooting as well. 

But does this make the pursuit of gun control any less immoral? To say we're not punishing 100 million for the crime of one individual only, but for the crime of three?

(By the way, at Clackamas Town Center the shooter also stole the gun he used. Like Lanza, he wasn't even among the 100 million gun owners in America. Instead, he was just a man with criminal intent.)