top of page

The Top 10 Gun Control Proposals Have Absolutely NO Chance of Working

Updated: Mar 1, 2020

This weekend brought about two mass shootings, leaving 29 people dead, and dozens more injured. I wanted to take some time to discuss the most common proposals for gun control laws.

I'm going to make this slightly controversial statement, that we will return to several times throughout the article.

Official Statement - I currently have a gun in my backpack no more than three feet away from me. I did not buy this gun. It was purchased by another person, and given to me as a gift.

1. Background Checks

This is by far the most popular proposal. The idea that if we somehow have a more efficient background check system, and a national requirement for background checks, we will stop criminals from obtaining guns.

First off, I'll ask you to read the "Official Statement" from above. Second, I'd ask you to point to a time in history where the government has set restrictions on the purchase of a product, and thus criminals ceased the obtainment of said product. Drugs today, and alcohol prohibition in the 1920's comes to mind.

Also, what good does a background check do if you're a young person about to commit your first crime?

2. Raising Purchasing Age

The idea of raising purchasing ages is always an easy political go-to. I'd have to once again point you to my "Official Statement" from above. What happens when you don't go to a store to buy a gun, but obtain one through a friend, family member, or on craigslist?

We'd have to once again consider the effects of raising the purchasing age on Alcohol, and Tobacco products. We'd also have to look at Drugs once again, since the legal purchasing age is "never-hundred years," and yet most drugs can be easily obtained through your guy that knows another guy.

Once again, refer to my "Official Statement" from above to see the workaround on this law.

3. Assault Weapons Ban

What is an "Assault Weapon" anyway? If you are on the hardcore left, this term apparently applies to really scary looking normal guns. It seems as though a weapon is either for defense, or for assault. "Assault" is a verb, not a classification. If I attack someone with a knife it becomes an "Assault Knife." In the analogy, a Cutco knife would be a perfect legal kitchen utensil- Much needed to easily cut through tomatoes, cucumbers, or a t-bone steak. But, if you take that same Cutco knife, paint the handle black, add a cool design on the side, and give it a convenient holster- It becomes an "Assault Knife."

An "Assault Weapon" is a media term that's been in use for quite some time. Most of the time this term is conflated with the term "Automatic Weapon." An AR-15 is not an automatic weapon, it's a semi-automatic weapon. It has the same mechanism as your standard handgun. One bullet fires, another is then automatically reloaded, and requires the pulling of the trigger to fire again.

Once again, refer to my "Official Statement" from above to see the workaround on this law.

4. Banning Accessories

President Trump has been one of the most successful presidents in recent history in the banning of gun accessories. "Bump Stocks" and "Suppressors" normally fit in this category. The problem with the banning of accessories? It doesn't work. We are once again trying to ban something that already exists. We are trying to ban something that already has thousands of products in circulation, now entering the black market.

We can once again ask how the governments "banning" of things has worked in the past. Drugs, Alcohol, etc. A ban does nothing more than score political points with the media. In the case of Trump, it really didn't even do that. The liberal media will continue to point the finger at Trump, even though he's passed more gun restrictions than former president Obama.

You can't "un-invent" something. These products can be made in a garage by someone that slept through shop class in high school. Look at a ban as a political score, but not an effective measure when it comes to curbing violence.

Once again, refer to my "Official Statement" from above to see the workaround on this law.

5. Red Flag Laws

One of the most disturbing talking point from today's speech made by President Trump in response to the deadly shootings over the weekend, was on "Red Flag" laws.

I live in Antioch, TN, which means I know a little bit about mass shootings considering we've had two in the last 3 years. In the most recent, a crazed individual left his apartment in the nude, and traveled to the nearest establishment that would be filled with people. The Waffle House shooting claimed 4 lives, and injured many others. Why is this relevant? The man had had his guns taken away thanks to "Red Flag" laws citing his mental instability. Those laws were no match for his parents, who proceeded to give the guns right back.

A Red Flag law is nothing more than guilty until proven innocent. All people have the right to defend themselves. That right was not given by the government, it was sworn to be protected by the government. In this case, it is the government that can take your right to self defense, and then force you to prove that you can have that right back. It's guilty until proven innocent, which is explicitly against the principles in the founding of our country.

Once again, refer to my "Official Statement" from above to see the workaround on this law.

6. Gun Confiscation

Make no mistake, and remove the benefit of the doubt. Hardcore leftists want to take the guns, plain and simple. This intention is most often accidentally displayed in the hours following a new mass-shooting.

Is it possible to confiscate all the guns? No. It's extremely not-possible. Take any other product that can be made by an individual. Once again, just take drugs as an easy example. Why doesn't the US just confiscate all the drugs? For a long period of time, all drugs were considered illegal throughout the entire country, yet it would have been nothing more than a fools errand to attempt confiscation.

Guns have a pretty simple blueprint. A blueprint so easy, people were making them about 300 years ago using tools that would seem laughable to use today. A pipe, a projectile, and an explosion is all that's needed for a gun. Can you ensure that no one will obtain these items? Can you ensure that law-breaking individuals will follow this law?

An easy workaround for this law: Report your guns stolen. They can't be confiscated if you are no longer in possession of them. Bury them in the back yard, hide them in a hole in the floor, or a space in the attic. In Germany, actual people were banned and later confiscated, and they couldn't even do that successfully. Banning guns is simply a fools-errand.

7. High Capacity Magazine Ban

Once again we're trying to ban something that already exists. By that I mean two things: It has hundreds of thousands of variations on the market, so it will be bought and sold at will, illegally. Also, it's easy to make, thus people will make it.

In addition to the ineffectiveness of this idea, it also removes simple logic from the scenario. It takes 2-5 seconds to switch out a magazine. Taking magazines down from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will add about 5 seconds per magazine- in an attack that sometimes lasts hours for a response by the police.

8. Internet Controls

Today, President Trump declared war on the internet, the last bastion of freedom enjoyed by the American people. He called for new tools from social media companies to identify potential threats, and the media have called for an end to the controversial site "8chan," which has been used by three shooters this year to post manifesto's prior to carrying out their murderous attacks.

If the social media companies want to make new tools to identify these people, I'm okay with that. It's their platform, and all of us freely choose to use SM on a daily basis. What is not okay is the governments use of this in correlation with "Red Flag" laws. Read the point about red flag laws above.

Let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe that shutting down 8CHAN is going to stop mass shootings? Maybe it will stop shooters from posting their manifestos, but that can easily be interchanged with writing a letter to the newspaper, and mailing it a few days before-hand. Normal people aren't on 8CHAN getting radicalized. They are going on this site to talk with others that share their warped viewpoints.

Blaming 8CHAN is similar to blaming the gun, in the fact that a gun has never killed anyone, the person using the gun killed someone. This principle must be held true to it's logical conclusion. Stop the people, not the tools. If anything, we should want these people out their sharing their views. It's a lot better than pushing them further below the surface, which is where they are sure to go if free speech outlets are shut down.

9. Violent Video Game Restrictions

This is an old one. I happen to agree that violent video games are not good for developing minds. But the question must be asked: What part does the government have in this situation?

To me, this exacerbates the underlying issue, which is the removal of responsibility placed on parents to raise their children, in exchange for your government "daddy" calling the shots. The more responsibility we place on government, the worse our society has become. It's time for parents to step up in this situation, not the president. If video games are in fact an issue, then product boycotts on companies like Sony, Microsoft, and others should ensue.

To be clear, I do not think that video games radicalize individuals, I think that video games radicalize already mentally-ill individuals. They desensitize violence, and the sanctity of human life. But that responsibility cannot fully be placed on the games themselves. It's once again on the parents, not the government, to lead by example, and aid in the growing process of a child.

Making a game illegal, or placing a restriction without teaching the moral reasoning, or the "why," leaves the same void as the prohibition of underage drinking, pornography, drug use, and anything else restricted by the government, but not taught by the parents.

10. Mental Health Laws

Mental health lumps in with Red Flag laws, but I wanted to address it separately. We have a mental health issue in this country. At Good Morning Liberty, we address it as a lack of meaning in our lives. This meaning is brought by a responsibility that is no longer taught by the public school systems, or most importantly- parents.

What law is to be made for those with mental health problems? They haven't committed a crime. An exception could be made for those that have stated to their doctor that they wish to harm others, but that is also a thin line towards a very slippery slope.

What if depression is used as a "Red Flag?"

The unintended consequence of "gun laws" in response to mental health issues is simple. People will stop talking about it. If our problem is a stigma on the discussion of mental health, the absolute last response we should seek is the punishment of those that have admitted to mental health problems.

If this legislation is carried out anyway, you'd be able to refer back to my "Official Statement" from the beginning of the article as an easy workaround to this law.

At the end of the day...

Laws will not fix a problem that is hundreds of thousands of years old. Humans kill other humans. They always have, and that will probably never change. What has changed are the tools they use to carry out the task. Placing responsibility in the hands of the government has never, and will never work. It's a feel-good response to enact a law, but it's a response that carries no chance of actually working. The only chance we have is to put a focus on personal responsibility, gratitude, and parenting. Expecting a top-down solution to our societal problem is futile, and quite frankly, dangerous for society as a whole.

Maybe it's the removal of good parenting in exchange for government restrictions that has led us here in the first place.