It is apparent to me that since all gun control is proposed as a means to lower the crime rate and yet areas where guns are most severely prohibited have the highest rates of crime, the argument is a failed argument. So, what is the real goal of firearms prohibitionists?
The Brady Campaign voices its main concern as "gun violence" yet seems completely unconcerned about violence committed by other means. Why just gun violence? The same can be said about the Violence Policy Center and a host of other organisations bent on prohibiting the ancient right of free men.
Since the Supreme Court decision DC-v- Heller, Mr. Heller was "allowed" to register his weapon and be issued a license so he may have a firearm in his home to protect himself and his family from gun violence, and violence by other means, at the hands of an uncaring home invader. However it was not that simple. He was not allowed to register the weapon of his choice since it was by a cleverly structured definition a machine gun, but only considered as such by Washington DC authorities, he could not lawfully even possess it and had to settle on a revolver instead of the more utilitarian semi-automatic handgun he had in mind.
Now, Mr. Heller is a "Special Police Officer" in the District of Columbia and while on the job is required/permitted? to carry a firearm in order to fully execute his duties. Now, I ask, what is the real purpose of the gun prohibitionists when the law is used to prohibit handgun ownership of not only a law abiding citizen, but a law enforcing citizen? I can only conclude that the ultimate goal of all gun control schemes is to strip us all of our civil liberties and then, and only then, may one speak of "all we, like sheep."