In the aftermath of the attack in Orlando, we have heard the usual calls for more gun control.  The argument goes as follows “If only we had more regulations on the owning of firearms, these types of shootings could be avoided.”  (If you listen to some people on the left, you would think the Second Amendment only protected the right to hunt deer.)

However, let’s take gun control to its full and logical conclusion.  What would happen if we eliminated all civilian owned firearms in the country?  Not just sidearms or commonly mischaracterized “assault weapons”–which has become a left-wing euphemism for “big and scary looking”–but shotguns and other types of firearms, as well.

In truth, banning all weapons just wouldn’t work. Even if you could verify that every gun in the country had been turned over to authorities or destroyed, and there was not a single firearm in private hands, there are still a couple of key problems.

The first is that, while you can get rid of physical technology, you cannot make people forget the process of making something.  This is similar to the argument against eliminating nuclear weapons.  If, in this gun-free future, some nefarious character builds himself a new firearm, then the entire country just becomes one large “gun free zone.”

The second problem comes from potential weapons smugglers and unlawful entry into the country by drug cartels, terrorists, and others who could easily exploit the open border. This is similar to anti-gun advocates’ response to the problem presented by Chicago, where gun control laws are already strong: gun control should work, but lax laws in Indiana let guns flow freely into the city anyway.

Ultimately, people who are committed to killing scores of people will find a way to do so–with or without a gun.   To paraphrase John Schindler, 9/11 was not about “box cutter control,” and the Boston Marathon was not about “pressure cooker control.”

Put side by side on a table, a gun is the same as a snow shovel, baseball bat, or a frying pan: it is an inanimate object that has no mind of its own.  Only the motives of the person wielding the object matters.  A person who has never done anything to anyone and who uses a firearm to defend themselves, their family, or their property should not have to surrender their chosen method of self-defense.