The endgame for the no-guns agenda means NONE, for anyone!

Gun control advocates do not just oppose civilian gun ownership; they also argue that guns in the hands of police make people less safe.

In January, a Border Patrol agent in Portland shot and wounded two Venezuelan nationals who belonged to the violent Tren de Aragua gang after they allegedly tried to run agents over with their vehicle. In response, Kris Brown, president of Brady United, tweeted the following:

“We don’t know the details behind the shootings of 2 people by a Border Patrol agent in Portland. But I know one thing for certain: whether in the hands of federal officers or everyday Americans, guns do not make us safer. Yet Trump is reshaping our country based on this lie.”

What were the Border Patrol agents supposed to do when an illegal alien with a criminal record tries to run over an agent? How are unarmed agents supposed to apprehend and detain violent gang members?

Currently on its website, Brady United explains: “Why Police violence is gun violence … As we work to tackle the gun violence epidemic in America, we cannot ignore police violence or its devastating effects.”

The same claim is made repeatedly by other gun control groups.

“Police violence is gun violence and that’s why our movement must be responsive as well,” declares Shannon Watts, president for Moms Demand Action.

“Police violence is gun violence,” proclaims Gabby Giffords, with the Giffords Law Center.

These last two statements are from 2021 and 2020, so their opposition to police having guns isn’t a new focus.

Gun control groups sometimes openly acknowledge their goal of banning all guns. In a 2023 interview with Time magazine, for example, Gabby Giffords – who heads the Giffords Law Center – answered a question about her goal by saying: “No more guns.” When the interviewer asked whether she meant no more gun violence, Giffords clarified: “No, no, no. Lord, no. Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”

Time magazine itself treated the remark as significant enough to place Giffords’ line – “No more guns, Gone” – in the headline.

If firearms are bad per se, it should be easy to find places where either all guns or all handguns have been banned and murder/homicide rates have gone down. One would think out of randomness there should be at least one place where murder rates have gone down or at least stayed the same, but every single time, even for island nations, murder rates have gone up immediately after the ban.

A simple logic is at play here: Who is most likely to obey the law? While such statutes may take a few guns from criminals, they primarily disarm the most law-abiding citizens, making it easier for criminals to commit crimes.

Similar problems exist for police. Taking away the guns that both civilians and police have doesn’t mean that criminals will readily forfeit their weapons. Criminals have strong incentives to keep and obtain weapons. Drug gangs can’t go to the police and ask for help to get their drugs back when another gang steals their drugs. The gangs have set up their own little paramilitaries to protect their valuable stash.

Gun control advocates point to the low murder rate in the United Kingdom, with its largely unarmed police forces, as evidence that disarming police can make people safer. But they ignore that the U.K. had an even lower homicide rate relative to the U.S. before they enacted strict gun controls, and that after a 1997 handgun ban, Britain experienced increases in homicide rates.

Gun control advocates often frame their proposals as modest steps to reduce violence, but their own statements often reveal a far broader goal. The evidence from places that have banned guns also shows a troubling pattern: Disarming the law-abiding does not disarm criminals. If we want to reduce crime and protect the public, policies must focus on stopping criminals – not on leaving both citizens and police defenseless.