With the recent shooting in the USA this question has once again risen to the surface mainly spurred on by gun control trying to promote more acceptance of stricter laws. Gun control claims that such restrictive laws and obviously complete bans of guns will make us all safe from being shot. The argument and inducement presented is if there were no guns nobody would be shot by a gun.
And while the statement is obviously true it is no different to saying if there were no scalpels nobody would die of surgery. One could argue that scalpels were designed to kill and nobody needs a scalpel. The same argument could be extended to a number of things which do kill. Such as knives, motor vehicles, petrol, paraffin and even water.
At some point in time we begin to realise we are using a false argument to prove a point. It is impossible to remove all guns and the obvious example is that many drugs are banned yet are easily available within minutes to anyone who goes looking. The prohibition of alcohol in the USA is a lesson in the futility of trying to shut down or prevent anything there is a demand for and people are willing to ignore the law to obtain. Bans do not work and more often than not simply help enrich criminals and foster increased crime.
There is no example of a successful ban of any object or substance yet daily people express the belief and request that things must be banned to prevent others getting hold of them. It would appear that governments like bans and control because governments far prefer to create legislation that controls and restricts rather than address the actual causal problems. Problems which invariable relate to social problems government has failed to address.
In many instances government has deliberately engineered situations under its control in order to introduce restrictive legislation and increase control or remove citizens rights. Taking advantage of ignorance and creating the illusion of a successful ban to foster citizens demand of bans and willingness to believe the false arguments. Arguments that invariably include fear of harm or injury that are used as inducement. Gun control is an example of this use of ignorance and inducement using fear of crime and injury to promote acceptance of restrictive laws or bans.
There simply is no causal relationship between levels of firearm ownership and crime and in 200 years of the most desperate searching gun control advocates and researchers have not even been able to prove the faintest hope of the most vague link. To do so would be a world first and there is a mountain of false research that has failed to provide this proof. Yet many believe the instrument causes crime when it comes to guns, ascribing magical powers to firearms, inanimate objects that somehow control people but see no such relationship between motor vehicles and road deaths.
Any such claim by our police or government should be immediately labelled as a deliberate lie and the person making the statement stripped of all authority. There is absolutely no hope of any ban or restriction on firearm ownership making the slightest difference to crime, the supply of guns to criminals who ship drugs in by the ton or increasing our safety. Gun control is not about guns, it is about control. Your control. One could argue slaves safety is provided by the master but who provides safety from the master