"A sword never killed anyone. It is a tool in the hand of the killer." Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman statesman and writer, 5 BC - 65 AD. Yes, the "gun control" debate really has been going on for more than 2,000 years, long before firearms were invented. The NRA can't even take credit for the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" meme, given that Seneca The Younger said something so similar around 1,925 years ago.
You'd think this debate would have been over long ago, but no. Both sides continue to argue, scream, rant and rave over it. We are bombarded with an endless stream of massaged, folded, spindled, mutilated, and sometimes outright fabricated data and statistics, manipulated to say whatever the presenter wants it to say. Most, but, it must be admitted, not all, of the manipulation and fabrication is coming from the anti-gun crowd. That debate has recently gone from its usual simmer to a rolling boil once again after Uvalde. Anti-gun politicians went into their usual contrived hysterics, and are now publicly gnashing their teeth and ripping out their hair over the Supreme Court's very correct decision in the NYRSPA vs. Bruen case. Rather than rehash the same, tired arguments that have been thrown back and forth for centuries, or play the "my study is better than your study" game, I'd like to try something different, that being logic and common sense.
Any law or regulation that is designed and intended to reduce or eliminate access to a product or service, or make a particular behavior, practice or activity difficult or impossible to engage in, is a form of prohibition. The 18th Amendment was an obvious example. Another is our current "War On Drugs." Other examples are taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and other products, and complex licensing and permitting regulations that increase the cost of ownership or engagement beyond what most people can afford to pay. Gun control, be it in the form of outright bans or less restrictive regulations, is nothing more than a form of prohibition.
Now, let's consider some facts that should be self evident to anyone with two neurons to rub together. Alcohol prohibition was an abject failure. Cigarette taxes have been an abject failure. Drug prohibition has been an abject failure. Why? Human nature and economics. If there is a demand for a good or service, someone will supply it. It is feasible to reduce access to a physical good by increasing the price with taxes and regulation, but only to a point. The perception of need for the good, in other words the demand, is still there, and may even be increased. people naturally tend to resent such restrictions, especially if the need is perceived as acute and the restrictions as unreasonable. Criminals, by definition, generally ignore the law. The smart ones treat it as a risk/benefit analysis. If the potential profit exceeds the risk, they're more than willing to step in to meet demand. An otherwise law abiding public, either resenting government intrusion or being denied a perceived need that must be satisfied, provides them with an ample customer base.
The government's prohibition having turned the market sector into an unregulated, illegal free-for-all inevitably results in an increase in violence and other associated criminal activity. People engaged in black market activities can't call the cops or file a lawsuit. Thus, all the gang warfare during alcohol prohibition, similar turf wars and the increase in robbery, burglary, prostitution and other crimes associated with the War On Drugs, are the inevitable result. Gun control is no different, and uniquely adds to the number of innocent victims by denying them the means of self defense.
The fact is, humans aren't just tool users; we're too makers. I am a self taught hobby blacksmith and machinist, with an educational background that is weighted toward the physical sciences. If I felt the need for firearms, there is little the authorities could do to prevent me from producing them, for myself and others if I so chose, short of imprisoning me. Then, they'd still have to deal with the ten others who'd take my place, and the hundred that would take theirs, because there are millions of me. We live in a society where one of the world's most powerful non-nuclear explosives is for sale at every fuel station, and everything needed to produce explosives and chemical weapons is available at your local home improvement center or pool supply, no questions asked. Drugs and the supplies to make (or grow) them can be had online, especially on the Darknet, though with the proliferation of Chinese Fentanyl, this has become a much riskier proposition. Would you rather engineer your own bioweapon? No problem, everything you need can be easily purchased online, from companies like this one. All the information needed to use these materials is available online, and in used bookstores. Remember books?
It must be this way. It would be almost impossible to maintain a technologically advanced society otherwise. Given this, if access to weapons were the root of all our problems, as gun control advocates claim, our cities should look like a bad remake of Escape From New York, but they don't. I can still walk to the market at 10pm in relative safety. There is no lunatic with an AR-15 waiting to jump out from behind every lamp post, no jihadist hiding in every hedgerow, despite the hysterical pontificating of the mass media and certain politicians. The world is actually much less violent than it was even two hundred years ago, even taking into account the attempted genocides of the 20th Century, all if which were, it should be noted, committed by governments that first disarmed the victims through legal prohibitions.
Prohibitions don't work. They never deliver on the promise of safety and security. In fact, they almost always result in increased violence, criminality and corruption. This is especially true in the case of gun control. So, why do large numbers of politicians, bureaucrats and politically connected 'elites' love gun bans so much? It's really very simple. People who've been disarmed, can't say no. They can't effectively resist. They become fearful, dependent and controllable. Gun control is about power. That's all. It has nothing to do with your safety, and everything to do with turning you into a slave.
Every single one of the tyrants in the photo at the beginning of this post disarmed their subjects as one of their first acts. They did it to consolidate their power. They knew intuitively that an armed citizenry can resist, and is therefore dangerous to a ruler. Free men are armed; slaves aren't. This is why you should carefully question the motives of anyone who claims that you must surrender a God given right for your safety, the greater good, or any other reason.
I am, and have always been, unafraid to voice my opinions. In fact I believe everyone needs to vent now and then, and we all have a God given right to do so. I despise willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, and take a perhaps perverse pleasure in puncturing the politically correct proclamations of those who have anointed themselves as our betters. I could be described as a contrarian and a bit of a curmudgeon, having now reached an age at which those labels no longer sound odd. Not everything I'll address here will be controversial. In fact, I would rather keep that sort of thing somewhat limited (and it should surprise no one that I probably won't succeed in doing so). We already have our fill of whining talking heads on the 'net. However, if you are easily offended or thin skinned, you might want to skip this blog. You have been warned.