A Lesson for Liberals on Guns

Our fearless leader Barack Obama recently bypassed democracy and implemented executive action on guns. Obama’s administration will be closing loopholes allowing people to buy gun parts at shows without the required background checks. He cried when announcing his decision, and I have to agree with the president: Gun regulation is most certainly something to weep over.I don’t like guns. I think gun culture is a misogynistic industry run by fat angry white men in baseball caps compensating for the unsatisfying missionary style sex they have with their wives. I think the NRA is running and ruining this country, and I reject gun enthusiasm as sociologically repulsive. I don’t believe, however, that government is the solution. Liberals have oversimplified the issue: They believe more control will mean less ownership. History has proven this statist solution wrong time and time again. Using empirical observation and logical reasoning I hope to make a case against any laws prohibiting or regulating gun ownership.Liberals argue that most guns used during mass shootings are legally purchased with little to no regulation, and they obtusely conclude that this unrestricted legality leads to mass shootings. The logical fallacy here is relatively evident: Mass killers do indeed purchase guns legally, just like most drunks get alcohol legally. But during Prohibition, when alcohol was illegal, there weren’t any fewer drunks. The same goes for drugs. People don’t purchase drugs legally, but if you want to get drugs, you most certainly can, and without much difficulty. Liberals fail to see that this is also true for guns: you can’t stop black markets from happening. If people want guns, they will get them.Now, it is true that most Democrats don’t want to ban all guns: They simply want to regulate them. Well, dear liberals, I don’t believe in federal regulation either. If you believe IDs really keep people under the age of 21 from drinking, you need to put your weed down and go take a cold shower. When you try to limit something through central authority, you fail. The same goes for guns. Obama was lamenting the fact that guns were being sold at gun shows without the otherwise required background checks. But this loophole only exists because of regulation in the first place; if there weren’t any background checks, guns wouldn’t be sold at gun shows. Now that guns won’t be sold at gun shows, they will be sold somewhere else, or illegally. Markets are quicker, more clever and much more powerful than government.I recently entered a debate over gun regulation on the public forum that is Exeter Confesses, and I essentially argued that the radicalization of gun culture in America is caused by an increasing hostility on the part of the federal government towards guns, which Americans see as symbolic for patriarchal tyranny, just like teenagers and alcohol.We’ve demonstrated that gun regulation doesn’t serve any real or tangible purpose besides being a nuisance to free markets. But much more than that, gun regulation actually fuels Americans’ fear of government. More people buy guns when the federal government steps in. It’s just an American thing.We should try to change our countries culture and morals rather than regulate its people.