(Treading on thin ice.)
Let me start out by saying gun bans aren't the answer. Regulation and other incentives are.
At issue isn't legal gun ownership. That is, and always will
be, a protected right under the second amendment. As long as you're not
a crazy, or a criminal, you can have a stockpile.
The problem is with the NRA's stance for the total deregulation of guns.
Deregulation is what happened, on a larger scale, with nuclear weapons. It promotes the escalation of weaponry. "If the criminals carry knives, I'll carry a hand gun. If the criminals are carrying hand guns than I'll carry a rifle. If the criminals are carrying a rifle, I'll carry a machine gun." Where does this stop? When everybody is counting the silos in their backyards or has the biggest wall?
(More Below)
The problem with the NRA is that has taken a stance against the background check policy, and against any suggestions to add safety features to their products. It denies any blame for the unsafe characteristics, or use, of their product. Even after the fact. We have some of the same suggested safety regulations already implemented into the automotive industry, has that infringed the right of anybody to own a car? The Cigarette industry also fits into this example. These products, improperly fitted, or used, are killing people. Isn't it our responsibility as humans with forethought to make sure that A) responsible humans are using these products correctly and B) Irresponsible humans are not allowed to use them at all?
Thinking like this would allow Iran to have as many nukes as they want? As long as we can strike harder.
We need to regulate weaponry, at some level. It's called being proactive, not reactive.
Whether this means background checks to catch the criminals, chips to track a stolen gun, or locks to stop the children, these steps don't infringe on the legal ownership of the product, just the use. Just like a seatbelt is a personal infringement that saves lives. It doesn't however make it harder for law abiding citizens to own a car. We have locks on our cars so that criminals don't steal them, and so children don't go for a joy ride in them. These safety features work for cars, why not guns?
The NRA is blending the right to own and the right to use in order to mislead.
Side note: some people actually fall into the "escalation theory" with cars too. They purchase bigger cars to be safer on the roads. "If the irresponsible people are driving Yugos, I'll drive a Hummer." This doesn't change the fact that an irresponsible person is still behind the wheel of a potentially killer product. Should drunks be allowed to drive, because we have a safer car?
The fact is that the NRA is a strong arm of the weapon manufacturers. They probably see any regulation as a costly solution for their industry, (as did the auto industry before Nader's seat belts and airbags). They also might see this as a backhanded way to increase their product sales. Can you imagine the sales chart if a national weapon escalation program gained momentum?
If we really listen to the NRA, they're all about making it easier for the irresponsible people to get guns. In real-world numbers that's a formula for disaster. They really think that everybody, regardless of background, has a right to their products. Should we apply the same model for alcohol and drugs? Toddlers on meth, coming to a theater near you? Oh that's right, drugs don't have an amendment. Come on! Think responsibly! The NRA gives us no solutions to correct the influx of weaponry into the criminals hands, because it goes against their business model. In fact, any regulation that inhibits anybody to get a gun is now seen as an attempt to "take everybody's guns away".
The cigarette companies used this tactic when they were told they couldn't sell to minors. The alcohol companies used it when they were told they couldn't advertise in certain places. And the auto companies used it too, against Nader.
The NRA has fabricated an enemy in the left. The left is not out to take guns away from law abiding citizens. The fact is they only suggest the smallest amount of conservative forethought, based on actual, proven, real-world experiences.
If somebody were to suggest that gun manufacturers release their distribution list and hold these distributors accountable to the full life cycle of their serial, or RFI, tracked product, The NRA would call them a ridiculous lefty. Yet our car registration system does this everyday.
If somebody were to suggest that all gun sales be required to occur through a documented registration transfer, The NRA would call them children. Yet the alcohol and vehicle sales system does this everyday.
If a gun is lost in the system, or used in a crime, and somebody suggests a penalty for the last known registered owner, including dealers and manufacturers, The NRA would call them anti-patriotic radicals. Yet the probation system does this everyday.
Yes, if everybody had guns, criminals would have to find another way to take your stuff. The fact is they would find a way.
and Yes, if we ban the guns, the criminals would be the only people with guns.
Then the problem really isn't why, or how, the criminals have guns. The real problem is why they do what they do. People aren't born to abuse the system. They're born out of the system. If we make it easier to rob and kill, than learn and excel, we're crazy to expect them to make the right choice.
There is a power from education that some people are being denied.
There is a power from employment that some people are being denied.
There is a power from leadership that some people are being denied.
These people find power elsewhere. Sometimes, in the barrel of a too easily purchased, untraceable, black market weapon.
If we continue to de-fund these empowering community building assets, and continue to turn a blind eye to the traceability and safety of guns, we'll continue to have to worry about which came first, the gun, or the criminal.