Ban the Violence, Not the Guns

Democrats love to claim that Republicans have only one answer to gun violence: thoughts and prayers. The reality is, Democrats are the ones stuck on a single, recycled answer — banning guns. Every tragedy becomes another excuse to trot out the same tired talking point, as if outlawing firearms will magically erase violence.

Unlike the Democrats, Republicans have put forward multiple alternatives like tackling the mental illness crisis, enforcing the laws already on the books, hardening soft targets like schools and allowing trained teachers to be armed if they choose. Democrats scoff, saying schools would look like prisons. Funny how they never complain about the armed security in Congress, or the airport checkpoints, or the courthouses. All those places are heavily guarded — yet only when it comes to protecting children do Democrats suddenly object to strong security.

Democrats insist they want to save children’s lives when it comes to gun violence. But their outrage rings hollow, because at the very same time they champion abortion — which ends the lives of children before they’re even born. That’s not consistency, it’s hypocrisy. Either children’s lives matter, or they don’t.

The Democrat Talking Points

As the saying goes: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Democrats keep pushing the “ban the guns” line like addicts repeating a bad habit. But if guns were the problem, the U.S. would resemble Mogadishu by now—except we don’t even rank in the top 20 for gun-related deaths per capita. Americans own more guns than people—about 120.5 guns per 100 residents—yet the country is not leading the world in gun deaths. That fact alone should give anyone pause.

The Assault Weapons Smokescreen

One of the Democrats’ favorite talking points is banning so-called “assault weapons.” The problem? “Assault weapon” is a political label, not a technical definition. It usually just means ordinary semi-automatic rifles that look “scary” to politicians. The AR-15, for example, functions no differently than many hunting rifles that never make the evening news. By targeting these firearms, Democrats aren’t solving violence — they’re demonizing the most popular rifles in America. And once they succeed in banning one class of guns, nothing stops them from expanding the definition until nearly every firearm falls under it. That’s not safety. That’s a roadmap to disarmament.

And here’s the kicker: rifles of all types combined account for fewer homicides each year than blunt objects like hammers, or even “personal weapons” such as hands, fists, and feet. Yet Democrats want the American people to believe banning rifles is the silver bullet to ending violence. If rifles were really the driving force behind crime, the statistics would show it. Instead, their obsession with banning them proves it’s political theater, not public safety.

But it never stops with rifles. More and more, Democrats are lumping semi-automatic pistols into the “assault weapon” category, along with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. But here’s the reality: those are standard capacity magazines, designed exactly as the firearms were intended to function. By redefining them as “high capacity” and “dangerous,” Democrats create a narrative that makes everyday handguns — the most common defensive weapon in America — the next target. It’s a bait-and-switch: start with the rifles, then move on to pistols, then to magazines, until the right to keep and bear arms is whittled down to nothing.

The Mental Health Double Standard

Democrats are increasingly shying away from the mental illness argument, and for good reason: it puts them in a political bind. For years, conditions like gender dysphoria were recognized as mental illness — yet today they are celebrated and normalized under the banner of “gender ideology.” If Democrats acknowledge that mental instability should disqualify someone from gun ownership, they risk sweeping in groups they openly champion. If they ignore it, their “mental health filter” becomes meaningless. Either way, they’re caught between political theater and real-world consistency.

What makes this even more troubling is the rise in violent incidents carried out by individuals suffering from gender dysphoria. Especially targeted attacks on Christians by these people struggling with their identity. In the Annunciation Catholic School massacre, the attacker — a transgender individual — expressed deep regret about his “Female” identity, saying they were “tired of being trans” and wishing they had “never brainwashed” themselves. This isn’t just about identity; it’s about unresolved mental struggle manifesting in violence. By refusing to acknowledge those underlying issues — and even promoting them politically — Democrats not only undercut their own gun-control arguments but also endanger the very communities they claim to protect. Once again, politics takes precedence over consistency — and safety.

The SSRI Factor

Another issue largely ignored in the gun debate is the widespread use of SSRI medications prescribed for mental illness. Time and again, mass shooters are found to have been on — or recently taken off — antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs. While SSRIs can help many people, they also carry well-documented risks of agitation, suicidal thoughts, and in rare cases, violent behavior — especially among the young. Yet Democrats never want to confront this piece of the puzzle, because it raises uncomfortable questions not only about the failures of current mental health treatment but also about their deep ties to the pharmaceutical industry through political donations.

The bigger problem is cultural: as a society, we’ve become addicted to the idea of a pill fixing everything. Instead of working through deep-rooted issues like trauma, isolation, or identity struggles, we medicate and hope for the best. Democrats are quick to blame the gun, but slow to confront the uncomfortable truth that America leans on pharmaceutical band-aids instead of addressing the underlying wounds. Ignoring the role of these medications while focusing solely on firearms isn’t just dishonest — it leaves a critical risk factor completely unaddressed.

Of course, millions of Americans take SSRIs or similar medications and never pose a threat to anyone. To strip them of their rights just because they’re prescribed a pill would be punishing them for what they might do — the equivalent of revoking driver’s licenses because alcohol exists and people could drive drunk. That’s not justice. That’s pre-crime.

This is where red flag laws could, in theory, play a role — but only if they respect the Constitution. If a physician sees a patient sliding into instability, they should be able to raise the alarm. That alarm must trigger due process: detention, a mental competency trial, and only after a court adjudication of instability should any restriction on rights apply. Anything less turns red flag laws into an end-run around the Second Amendment.

The Background Check Myth

Democrats constantly tout “universal background checks” and “Close the Gun Show Loophole” as if those are the magic fix. But here’s the inconvenient truth: most school shooters either passed a background check with no problem or were too young to buy a firearm legally in the first place. Background checks didn’t stop them.

The Red Flag Failure

The same goes for red flag laws. These shooters often left behind a trail of disturbing behavior — exactly the kind of warning signs red flag laws are supposed to catch — yet the system failed again and again. The Parkland shooter. The Uvalde shooter. The Highland Park shooter. The signs were all there, but no one acted. Red flag laws didn’t prevent the massacre in practice.

Still Waiting for Waiting Periods

Another talking point often brought up by Democrats is waiting periods. They operate under the assumption that someone suddenly “snaps,” runs to a gun store, buys a firearm, and immediately carries out violence. But the reality doesn’t match the rhetoric. In most high-profile shootings, the firearms were purchased weeks, months, or even years before the attacks — well beyond any waiting period Democrats propose.

Waiting periods only delay the purchase for a law-abiding citizen looking to defend themselves, but they do virtually nothing to stop a determined criminal or mass shooter who has already made up their mind. The only people truly burdened are those in immediate need of protection — like a woman trying to escape an abusive relationship who’s forced to wait days or weeks before she can legally arm herself. In practice, waiting periods punish the innocent while doing nothing to deter the guilty.

The Accountability Crisis

Even as Democrats demand more restrictions on lawful gun owners, their own policies make cities less safe. The “Defund the Police” movement gutted departments across the country, leaving fewer officers on the streets and slower response times for citizens in danger. At the same time, progressive district attorneys — often elected with the backing of left-wing donors — refuse to prosecute violent offenders, releasing criminals back into communities after little or no jail time.

The result? A revolving door of crime where repeat offenders know there are few real consequences. Guns aren’t driving that chaos — failed leadership and soft-on-crime policies are. If Democrats were serious about saving lives, they would enforce the laws we already have and hold violent criminals accountable. Instead, they target the rights of law-abiding citizens while giving actual criminals a free pass.

We Need Real Policies, Not Rhetoric

Democrats keep pushing these policies as though checking another box or passing another law will solve the problem. But if the laws they already brag about can’t catch the obvious cases, what makes anyone think doubling down will work this time?

Here’s a tough reality: some of the cities with the toughest gun laws also suffer the worst gun violence. Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. all have strict gun regulations, yet consistently rank among the highest for shootings and homicides. Criminals don’t care about gun laws — that’s why cities with some of the nation’s strictest regulations remain plagued by shootings. On the flip side, there are cities with relatively lax gun laws but lower violence, showing that permissive laws don’t automatically lead to blood in the streets. And yes, there are also cities with both loose gun laws and high violence—but that only proves one thing: there is no straight line of causality between gun laws and gun violence. Culture, enforcement, poverty, gangs, and local leadership are the real difference.

But there’s another fact you’ll never hear from the mainstream media: for every tragic gun death (including suicides), guns are used defensively at least 10 times more often — and possibly as much as 100 times more, according to studies once cited by the CDC. But when those findings didn’t match the preferred political narrative, the CDC quietly shelved them. Even the lowest estimates put defensive gun use at 2:1, meaning guns are used more often to protect lives than to take them. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans use firearms every year to save lives, not take them. Strip law-abiding citizens of their guns, and you’re not saving lives — you’re putting them at risk.

The Path to a Ban

Democrats will argue that they’re not calling for an outright ban, just “common sense” measures like background checks, red flag laws, waiting periods, and restrictions on certain types of firearms. But here’s the truth: every one of these steps chips away at lawful gun ownership. Layer them together and you’re left with a slow-motion ban, where fewer and fewer Americans can legally exercise their Second Amendment rights. They don’t have to shout “ban the guns” in every press conference — the policies they push all lead to the same place.

“We don’t want to take your guns,” they say, while pushing legislation that does exactly that. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban is a perfect example. Democrats bragged that existing owners were “grandfathered in,” pretending it wasn’t a ban. But new ownership was outlawed, and worse, those who already owned such firearms couldn’t even sell them. That isn’t protecting rights — that’s phasing them out.

---

Bottom Line

The Democrats keep chanting, “The Republicans only offer thoughts and prayers” but they are the ones that only have one solution: ban the guns. All they’re doing is hitting replay on failed ideas. The facts don’t lie:

• America is already the most heavily armed nation, yet not the deadliest.
• Cities with strict bans still suffer high gun crime, while others with permissive laws stay relatively safe.
• Defensive gun use is real, and it happens far more often than gun-control advocates will admit.

The real issue isn’t the tool — it’s the violence itself. Guns are a mirror: in the hands of criminals they take lives, in the hands of law-abiding citizens they save them. Until we’re honest about that, the endless chants to “ban the guns” will remain nothing more than political theater — empty lines for the cameras, not real solutions for America.

We need to ban the violence, not the guns.