I don't object to gun control. What I object to is stupid and useless gun control.
Unfortunately, all we seem to hear are stupid and useless gun control proposals. As a public service, here are two simple rules you can use to figure out whether a gun control proposal is stupid and useless:
Rule #1. Can the person proposing the law state what they think the law will accomplish? Most of the time it seems that they can't. For example, what good would banning bump stocks do? They were (maybe) used in one crime in the Republic's history. Is the goal really to prevent something that has only happened once? Really?
Rule #2. Can the person proposing the law state how likely the law is to accomplish the goal from Rule #1? Considering that you can make a bump stock from a string and a key ring, is it rational to ban bump stocks?
That's it - two simple rules to identify non-stupid and non-useless gun control laws. So let's use these rules to look at some gun control laws and see if they're stupid or not:
1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Stupid. The law was supposed to stop people from buying military style semi-automatic rifles. It didn't. The AR platform is likely the most popular rifle in America, and was so during the "ban". The Department of Justice said that the ban had precisely zero effect on gun crime.
Gun Free School Zones. Stupid. It was supposed to stop people from taking guns into schools. That sure worked great, didn't it?
I could go on with this, but you can add your own. My point, though, is that the gun control proposals (magazine size restrictions, one gun a month purchase limits, etc.) are stupid and useless. I'm willing to leave open the possibility that some gun control proposals could be non-stupid, at least in theory. But I sure haven't seen any yet.
UPDATE 2 March 2018 12:45: This line of reasoning continues in a second post.