Why "Gun Control" Doesn't Work

Okay, since we're still apparently "having the discussion" about gun control- a "discussion" which mostly involves responsible gun owners being harangued for the actions of a criminal- I think it's time we point out why Gun Control laws have never worked, and will never work.

Take this case, for instance.

See, the perpetrator in that instance was already a violent felon.  He'd killed his grandmother with a hammer.  Without looking, I'm guessing that the manslaughter charge was from a plea bargain, but that's a rant for another time.  Legally, he already wasn't allowed to have guns of any variety.  Not a hand gun, not a rifle, not a shotgun- none of it.

It's almost as if someone who is intent on committing one crime doesn't care about the fact he may be committing more than one.  It's almost as if no amount of laws will convince criminals to obey them.

On the other hand, stricter gun control laws do disarm responsible citizens who could otherwise defend themselves.  As the fine folks at PJ Media point out, the Newtown, CT shooting was stopped by a show of force.  That is, the police showed up with guns, and the shooter didn't even wait to confront them; he just shot himself.

William Spengler was shot by emergency responders.

Neither of them was stopped by an unarmed populace wagging their fingers.

It may be a cliche to say "if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns," but it is also true.  I can point to Europe, where they have a significantly higher instance of violent crime, even with their very strict gun control laws, than the United States.  I can point to Mexico, which has virtually banned private ownership of firearms.  How's that working out for them?

Rather than be reactionary and try to ban the icky, scary gun, maybe we could look at these things the way we do other crimes.  Do we ban computers because the hacking group 'Anonymous' exists?  Do we ban hedge funds and mutual funds because people like Bernie Madoff exist?  Do we ban cars because their are crashes and because criminals use them?

No.  We don't.  We don't do those things because that would be a terrible infringement on innocent people's liberty in response to specific crimes.  Yet every time a gun is used in a crime, especially a high profile crime, "guns" are blamed rather than the perpetrators.  Do we blame money for Bernie Madoff?  It can be argued that he ruined more people's lives than the shooter in Newtown, CT, and certainly more than William Spengler in Webster, NY.

We already have laws against murder.  Ponzi schemes were illegal before Bernie Madoff started his.  People who have decided to break the law don't care what the law is. 

My defense against the Bernie Madoff's of the world is a combination of common sense (don't believe unbelievable promises) and finding a financial manager I can trust.  What defense should I be allowed against someone who wants to kill me?