Why gun control always fails..
Why is that?
Well, action movies and sensationalized news media not withstanding, it is an empirical fact that firearms are only one of an INFINITE number of tools with which criminals may commit attacks murder/violent crime. I don't mean that only in the abstract but it is especially so because of the specific dynamic between an attacker and defender. This specific dynamic means that practically anything can be, has been, will be and is used to attack/murder and often with far greater efficiency than firearms. So even if it were possible to eliminate firearms from the equation in the US all together (of course it is not) there is still no reason to believe it would have any significant effect on reducing the rate of murder or violent crime. In fact, a lot of evidence points at the opposite effect.
Firearms are popular with criminals because some see them as a status symbol, thier obvious defensive advantages and for various other reasons. Yet firearms actually are not the most effective tool for murder. That may be counterintuitive for many who have been subjected to years of messaging that suggests the opposite... but the vast majority of people who are shot by others do not die. If one really wants to murder somebody or a group of somebodies there are many many other ways that are at least (if not more) as effective at accomplishing that goal than trying to make small inexact holes in them with a firearm.
A firearm as a tool is convenient because it is portable and allows one to engage at more distance then many other tools. Yet this one advantage "convenience", is actually never especially high on the priority list of an attacker. This is because, as the attacker, they always have the inherent advantage of getting to pick/control all of the other variables in the equation of their attack (like target, time, place, manner, desired outcome, etc.). THAT more than anything is why there are always an infinite number of tools available to an attacker. If one tool doesn't fit their needs they simply change the tool or number of tools. Or they change some combination of all the variables (all of which are in their control) to achieve their goal. If they can't get a particular tool legally, they can simply obtain it illegally (as the Newtown killer did) or again simply change some combination of the other variables in their equation. Practically speaking, access by a would be attacker to a specific tool like a firearm simply can not actually cause or prevent violent crime.
Since there are an infinite number of tools to chose from for people who are free to move about society unsupervised, the decision to commit an attack/murder is never depended on any one tool. This even includes suicide. People make a conscious choice to commit violent crime just like they make a conscious choice to commit suicide. These decisions are simply not based on the availability of any one particular tool. Which is why places like Japan (practically no guns) have twice the suicide rate of the US. And why places with very strict gun control like Russia (with 13 million firearms/ 9 guns per 100 people) has twice the homicide rate of the US (with 300 million firearms/ 100 guns per 100 people).
This is all fully supported by (among mountains of other evidence);
The worst foreign terrorist attack and mass killing in US history, no guns were used at all. (9/11)
The worst domestic terrorist attack mass killing in US history, no guns used what so ever. (OK City)
The worst school mass killing in US history no guns were used. (Bathe MI) Even though it happened in a time when not only were there no backgrounds checks for any firearms what so ever but practically anyone could buy and own fully automatic firearms with no special procedures at all.
Many of the most famous murder trials in US history (Like OJ Simpson) no gun used. (Although I bet his victims wished they had been armed)
Murder (mass and otherwise) has existed for ions prior to firearms and it exists even where there are no firearms allowed what so ever.
For the entire history of firearms, even with ALL the places in the world that have strict gun control and/or outright bans, gun control measures have never been shown to reduce overall violent crime/murder. Shouldn't there be at least a few examples of where it has worked?
Conversely, there is practically NO tool that is more effective for defense then a firearm. That is because of the specific benefits offered by firearms (convenience/ability to engage at distance) ARE especially critical for a defender. By definition a defender does NOT get to pick/control all the variables (tools, time, place, manner, etc.) they will face in an attack they need to defend against. They are always at this inherent disadvantage. So (unlike an attacker) the inherently disadvantaged position of a defender means the convenience offered by defensive tools like firearms IS paramount to them.
It logically follows that prohibiting and or restricting access to the most convenient & effective tools for defense (which are also completely unnecessary for attack) can ONLY have a significant negative impact on the ability to defend and practically no impact on the ability to attack/commit violent crime for someone who is free to move about society unsupervised.
That is why gun control always fails.