Everyone has heard the story and subsequent uproar that was caused by the comments of Bob Costas and article of Jason Whitlock. I'm going to make a case against gun control, but I will not use self-defense or personal liberty. Instead, I'm going to use an argument that, I think, should appeal to liberals, or at least a great deal of them. The Drug War. The Drug is routinely criticized by people of all ideologies. It's hated by libertarians, not well liked by liberals, and a lot of conservatives are starting to get on board with the idea that it really hasn't worked. I, personally, hate the drug war. It has cost billions of dollars, led directly to the deaths of countless lives, created a very large criminal underworld, and led to the overpopulation of our prison facilities (also costing untold dollars). And what has it accomplished? Who exactly CANT get drugs if they want them? Everyone with an IQ above 80 could go out, right now, and purchase illegal drugs. It's not very difficult. And this isn't the first time in our history where we've tried something like this. Prohibition. Basically everything I just said about The Drug War applied to Prohibition in the early part of the 20th century. It was a massive failure. It helped create and fuel the Mafia, led to the highest murder rates in our country's history, and kept almost no one from actually obtaining alcohol. It's hard to find anyone who would argue that Prohibition was either successful in its goals or was even a good idea to begin with. You see, when the government tries to outlaw an activity that is 1)popular 2)easily accessible and 3)very profitable, it's largely going to fail. Which brings me to gun control. It's fascinating how many people will argue against The Drug War, citing it's numerous failures, and will then turn around and argue for gun control and, basically, abolition of the Second Amendment. Exactly what do you think will happen that is any different than the two examples cited above? Do you believe the outlawing of guns won't create a similar criminal syndicate to that of the Mafia and the Mexican Drug Cartels? Of course it will. It will be far to profitable to not do such a thing. Do you think people will be prevented from actually obtaining guns when they want them? Of course they won't. Again, if you can't do it with drugs and/or alcohol, what exactly makes you think you will be successful with guns? Now, when the government starts collecting all of the guns, who exactly do you think will turn them in? The Criminals who use the weapons to protect their enterprises? Of course not. If a law telling them they can't sell drugs doesn't prevent them from selling drugs, why in the world would a law telling them they can't own guns prevent them from owning guns? No, only law-abiding citizens will, of their own free-will, turn their guns in. So, I ask, if the government were to ban guns, what would that ultimately look like? Well, like The Drug War today or prohibition of yesterday. Those who want to obtain guns will have no problem in doing so. Those who use guns for harmful purposes will continue to do so. As a bonus, the federal government will now have to be spending a boat-load of resources not only fighting the drug war, but now fighting the gun war. Also, our already over-crowded prisons will become even more crowded. And a whole new slew of deaths will come from people illegally running guns and getting in gang wars over said gun running. Finally, the argument is made that at the very least, it will help prevent the accidental shootings and the shooting of the type that occurred in the Trayvon Martin case. Zimmerman probably wouldn't own a gun if the law said he wasn't allowed. Therefore, he would not have shot Martin and Martin would be alive (let's forget, for a moment, that Zimmerman might well not). I'll concede the point. But I ask, which is more dangerous/leads to more deaths, these type of shootings, or drunk driving? You see, if the case is being made that we should outlaw something because, at least, it will stop people who normally obey the law from acting foolishly, then should we not, yet again, prohibit the sale/distribution/etc. of alcohol? Because drunk driving certainly kills more people than those killed in accidental homicides/Zimmerman type cases. Right? And when put like that, the answer becomes obvious. No, we should not outlaw guns. Because we did that once, and we saw the consequences. What lives were potentially saved from prohibition, many, many more were lost (along with dollars) due to the prohibition itself. It wasn't worth it then, and it isn't worth it now. If you ban guns, you will be creating yet another prohibition/drug war scenario. There is no upside here.