In this post, I will not discuss the very strong libertarian philosophical arguments as to why individuals should be allowed to carry guns. Instead, I want to take a look at the practical issue.
Suppose Congress passed legislation that banned all guns. Legislation so strong that it required that all guns be turned in. There are 285 million guns in the United States. I wonder how many of those guns would be turned in.
The most conscientious law abiding citizens might turn them in, but the bad guys won’t. So that means bad guys will have even more of an edge. If they want to rob, they are going to know their upstanding citizen/prospective-victim walking down the street is most likely unarmed.
A ban on guns is really legislation that helps out the bad guys. It is the equivalent of a TSA policy that would allow no one to carry guns on board a plane—other than terrorists. Even the TSA isn’t that nuts.
I wonder, if people, calling for a ban on guns, have really thought out their position. It just doesn’t make sense. Guns won’t be effectively banned—only guns owned by the good people will be turned in.
And, of course, anything less than a full ban will make for even greater problems. Gun control programs won’t stop the determined from getting guns. The shooter, Adam Lanza , in the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, simply grabbed the guns properly registered in his mother’s name. How did that deterrent work out?
If a “full ban” were enacted, it would be…………….