The premise of gun control is that it somehow curbs what bad actors can do with guns. Sure, that’s very simplistic, but if it doesn’t even theoretically do that, then there’s absolutely no reason to even discuss it.

There’s just one problem with that assertion. It’s not how things actually work.

Sure, the theory may sound good to many, but the problem is that these measures being proposed inhibit the actions of law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to curb the actions of those to whom the law means nothing.

Take the laws against guns on postal service property. Passed in 1972, they did nothing to stop several high-profile workplace shootings by postal employees.

It also didn’t do anything to stop what this person allegedly did.

A DeWitt postal worker who the U.S. Postal Inspection Service said brought guns to the post office in March is now facing charges, according to court records.

The worker, Bria K. Maraia, brought three guns to the DeWitt post office at 6581 Kinne Road, according to court records.

United States postal investigators found the firearms on March 24, Emily Spera, a Postal Inspection Service spokesperson said.

Maraia was charged with three counts of possession of a firearm on U.S. postal service property, according to court records. This is a “petty offense” under federal law, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $5,000, Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Southwick said.

Now, this isn’t a felony despite being against federal law, but the point here matters. If Maraia did indeed do what she’s accused of, the laws against bringing guns to postal service property did pretty much nothing to prevent it.

“But Maraia was arrested. That proves the laws work!”

No, it doesn’t. Maraia likely had done this multiple times, otherwise, the odds of an investigation would have been slim to none.

Then we also need to address the concept that she might have had a good reason to carry a gun regardless of the laws against it. For example, we don’t know if she had a stalker or abusive ex that she was afraid of. We don’t know if she drove through dangerous parts of town to get to work.

In other words, these laws meant to protect people like Maraia may well have been putting her life in danger.

Granted, that’s just speculation on my part, but that’s kind of the point. We don’t know people’s individual circumstances. Laws like these, supposedly meant to protect people, actually put people’s lives in danger.

Remember those post office shootings back in the day? The term “going postal” was synonymous with flipping your lid, but it was rooted in mass shooters pre-Columbine. The laws didn’t stop those shootings, but they did prevent law-abiding USPS employees from carrying a gun to work, thus making them vulnerable.

So, as you can see, the laws don’t actually do what they say they do.

I don’t know if Maraia is really just someone in a tough spot or not. Maybe she knew exactly what she was doing, had no real concerns for her own safety, and took the guns to work anyway. We can’t know.

What I do know is that the laws in question are like most other gun control laws. They only prevent the law-abiding from doing things without any regard for anything else.