Unlike guns, cars are not designed to be deadly — needless to say — but they are involved in the death of almost as many Americans in one year than were killed in the whole Vietnam War. If we were to prohibit the manufacture and sale of blue Honda Accords (an excellent vehicle, no doubt), then there would almost inevitably be a reduction in the number of deaths caused by blue Accords. The relevant question, however, is whether automobile deaths overall would go down — which under this limited example, they seemingly would not.

By analogy, the relevant question regarding gun-control legislation is whether it makes people safer or just shifts the allocation of resources within a marketplace.

Robert Steinbuch
September 14, 2012 (date it became public even though the article is dated September 17)
Gun control is a moving target: Most gun-restriction laws simply shift purchasers to different lethal weapons — with the notable exception of limiting magazine size.
[From reading the title and his introduction, “I served as a counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, attached to a U.S. senator who was one of the original co-sponsors of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. I worked in the Senate when the act was up for renewal.” I expected something very anti-gun. It was much more factual and almost pro-gun.

I also like the comment from Lawrence Keane (do you recognize that name? You should!), “So it seems your point is that gun control is a failed social experiment? All the firearms misused by this criminal are commonly owned by law abiding citizens and protected by the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions.”—Joe]