A recent commentary by Dr. John R. Lott Jr. argues that the gun control debate in America is no longer just about regulation.
He suggests some of the most prominent gun control advocates are pointing toward a much more concerning goal; one that goes beyond background checks or training requirements.
In a 2023 interview with Time, gun control advocate Gabby Giffords was asked about her ultimate goal.
Her response was: “No more guns… Gone.”
Not expanded background checks or tightened regulations.
She said her goal was eliminating civilian gun ownership entirely.
Other groups have taken positions that go even further.
Organizations like Brady United have argued that “police violence is gun violence,” suggesting the problem isn’t the person using the gun – it’s the gun itself.
What That Means
If guns themselves are the problem, the results should be easy to spot.
Ban them, and violence should go down.
But that’s not what’s happened.
As Dr. Lott points out, places that have imposed strict gun bans have not seen the kind of drop in murder rates people expect.
In many cases, rates went up afterward.
Who Actually Gets Disarmed
There’s a basic question at the center of all of this:
Who follows the law?
The people most likely to comply with gun bans are the same people who weren’t committing crimes to begin with:
Law-abiding citizens.
Criminals don’t operate that way.
While restrictions may take some weapons off the street, they tend to fall hardest on people who were following the rules in the first place.
“Police Violence is Gun Violence”
That same problem shows up when the conversation shifts to law enforcement.
The idea that police can operate safely without firearms depends heavily on the environment they’re working in.
In places where violent criminal networks exist, that assumption becomes much harder to maintain.
In the United States, especially in the Southwest, the environment includes violent gangs, armed repeat offenders, and cross-border criminal networks.
They take advantage of access – whether it be through trafficking routes or black market weapons already in circulation.
Reducing crime requires focusing on the people committing it, not just the tools they use.
How Nevada Fits into the Debate
Nevada already has a mix of gun laws in place.
In recent years, lawmakers have passed additional restrictions, such as the “red flag” law that allows courts to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a risk.
During the 2025 legislative session alone, multiple bills affecting gun rights were passed.
- AB 105 banned firearms at polling places
- AB 245 restricted certain rifles and shotguns for adults under 21
- SB 89 expanded firearm prohibitions tied to so-called “hate crimes”
- SB 347 expanded gun confiscation tied to mental health holds, raising due process concerns
Supporters say these laws are meant to improve safety.
Opponents argue they place additional burdens on people who are already following the law.
And as this debate takes place, law enforcement continues to deal with violent crime, repeat offenders, and organized criminal activity.
The Core Question
Gun control proposals often focus on access; who can buy a firearm, what type they can own, how they can carry it, etc.
It’s framed as a series of small, reasonable steps.
But when you put those steps together, important questions remain unanswered.
If the policies primarily affect people who follow the law while criminals continue to find ways around them, what exactly are we accomplishing?
Statements like “no more guns” suggest that, for some advocates, restrictions and regulations are part of a larger end goal.
It begs the question, is the ultimate goal to regulate legal gun ownership?
Or to effectively eliminate it?
