Gun control doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at reality.

Oh, I get the arguments and I see how people figure that we need it. The issue arises when we consider that it's all predicated on the laws actually having an impact on already unlawful behavior. Take what I wrote earlier today about Caribbean nations as an example.

Here in the United States, we have some challenges. We always will, but the question is how we decide to meet those challenges as they come up. Currently, there's a lawsuit challenging the laws about guns and state lines.

A number of attorneys general are opposing the lawsuit. However, Pennsylvania's AG, while talking about the amicus brief she was part of, made the dumbest argument humanly possible.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry has joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in support of state and federal regulations that govern gun sales, arguing that these laws are critical for public safety.

The coalition, led by New York, filed an amicus brief Thursday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case U.S. v. Steven Perez. The brief supports federal laws that prohibition individuals from transporting or receiving firearms from outside their state of residence, stressing that these regulations help prevent illegal gun and reduce violent crime.

“Preventing guns from crossing state lines—except when federally allowed—will keep guns from getting into the wrong hands through unlawful transfers like straw purchases,” Henry said. “My office will continue our efforts to combat gun violence by exposing and holding bad actors culpable for violating the laws.”

Except the prohibition doesn't prevent guns from crossing state lines. It makes doing so illegal in most cases, but it doesn't actually prevent anything.

We know this because Chicago has a long and storied history for blaming their gun violence issues on Indiana. They've said that the problem is that Indiana doesn't restrict gun laws enough, so bad actors buy guns there--violating federal law by committing straw purchases, in many cases, or just outright stealing guns, which violates state laws--and then illegally transporting them into Chicago for illegal sale.

All these laws are being broken to such a high degree that it's impossible to say that it's preventing much of anything...except the actions of law-abiding citizens.

See, criminals will do what they want to do, especially if they can make money from it. The law-abiding will, naturally, abide by the law. It's kind of a requirement of being law-abiding, after all.

So while the bad guys traffic guns hither and yon, regular folks are required to drop another $25 or so to conduct a transfer when they want to get a gun from out of the state. This is a tax on the law-abiding and little else.

"But it stops criminals from getting guns!"

Then why do we have so many problems with so-called gun violence? We know from the ATF's own data that most guns aren't coming from straw purchases or even from being bought from law-abiding citizens. They're either stolen or purchased from illegal, black-market dealers. If they're doing all that, why would anyone believe this is accomplishing anything?

I mean, I get that not everyone is going to agree with me on guns, but there has got to be a better argument than that.