Gun Control's Slippery Slope: From "Common-Sense" Restrictions to No Guns for Anyone — Including the Police! By Charles Taylor (Florida)
John R. Lott Jr.'s March 16, 2026, piece in American Greatness lays bare what many Second Amendment advocates have long suspected: the endgame of modern gun control isn't safer streets or fewer mass shootings, it's the complete disarmament of the population, law enforcement included. When leading activists declare that "guns do not make us safer" — even when wielded by police — they expose the ideology's logical terminus: a society where no one, not citizens, not cops, has firearms. And in that world, the only people armed will be criminals, who by definition ignore every law on the books.
The article spotlights recent statements that make the agenda unmistakable. Kris Brown of Brady United responded to a Border Patrol agent neutralising Tren de Aragua gang members by tweeting that "guns do not make us safer." Brady's own materials equate "police violence" with "gun violence," framing law enforcement armament as part of the problem. Shannon Watts (Moms Demand Action) and Gabby Giffords have echoed this: "police violence is gun violence," and in a 2023 interview, Giffords went further — "No more guns. Gone" — clarifying she meant all guns, period. These aren't fringe views; they're from the movement's most prominent voices.
The reasoning is chillingly consistent: if firearms inherently escalate danger, then arming police to protect the public is counterproductive. Better to remove the tool entirely than risk its misuse — even by trained officers. Historical evidence cited by Lott undercuts the safety claims: no jurisdiction has seen murder rates drop after broad gun bans. The UK, post-1997 handgun prohibition, saw homicide rates rise despite largely unarmed police. Island nations with strict controls often had lower rates before bans, then experienced increases afterward. Criminals, meanwhile, retain weapons for dominance — gangs evolve into armed paramilitaries when the state monopoly on force evaporates.
This trajectory spells disaster. Disarm the law-abiding, and you create a predator-prey dynamic where only outlaws carry. Disarm the police, and the thin blue line vanishes entirely. Criminals don't surrender guns at rallies or comply with registration; they stockpile them underground, using them to extort, traffic, and terrorise. The gun banners' apparent comfort with this outcome — criminals armed, everyone else defenceless — reveals priorities: ideological purity over practical safety. A disarmed populace is easier to control, less able to resist tyranny or street-level threats. If the goal is equity in vulnerability, then yes, criminals having guns while citizens and cops don't is "fine" — because the real target isn't crime reduction; it's eliminating the means of self-defence.
The pattern isn't new. Incremental steps — "assault weapons" bans, magazine limits, red-flag laws, universal background checks — chip away at civilian rights while activists normalize rhetoric that questions any armed authority. When those steps succeed, the discourse shifts: why stop at civilians if guns are the root evil? Police disarmament talk (from "defund" offshoots to explicit "police violence is gun violence") accelerates the slide.
Pro-gun voices argue the fix is targeting criminals, not tools: enforce existing laws, prosecute felons in possession, deter recidivism. But the movement rejects that, insisting systemic disarmament is the only path to peace. The irony is brutal: in pursuing a gun-free utopia, advocates risk a reality where the state is impotent and criminals reign supreme.
If Lott is right — and the quotes and logic suggest he is — the debate isn't about "common-sense reforms" anymore. It's about whether America will allow itself to be marched toward a future where only the lawless are armed. The gun banners seem okay with that. The rest of us shouldn't be, in America or Australia.
https://amgreatness.com/2026/03/16/gun-controls-endgame-no-guns-for-anyone/
