We shouldn't have a gun debate, but we do. The problem is that violent crime is an issue and some people can't seem to see beyond the tool being used to commit those violent crimes.

It's awful, both that we have such crimes and that we have people who are too myopic to see the problem for what it is, but here we are just the same.

Those of us on this side of the debate figure there are other ways to deal with violent crime. For the other side, however, that's not the case. Anything other than gun control is a non-starter.

Take this bit out of a story from Pennsylvania. The story itself is about a block party to remember victims of gun violence, among other things. It's an anti-gun event, w which is going to happen and since I value free speech, I'm not upset about all that much. I just regret there are that many stupid people out there.

The bit I'm talking about, though, is near the end, and it proves that no matter how good things get without gun control, they'll never be satisfied.

Pennsylvania reported 179 gun homicides in the first four months of this year, down 24% from the 235 over the same period in 2023. In Philadelphia, gun homicides dropped 16% over the period, the largest decline among major U.S. cities.

Advocates say community-based interventions are helping, but that gun-control legislation is needed as well. In May, two gun-related bills failed in the Pennsylvania House, each by a single vote. House Bill 335 would have banned bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic rifles to fire hundreds of rounds a minute; House Bill 2206 would have required gun sellers to submit required sales records electronically rather than by conventional mail.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal law outlawing machine guns did not authorize Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to ban bump stocks.

They have a 24% drop in "gun homicides" over the same period last year, and they still think they need gun control?

A 24% drop in anything, particularly a violent crime, is a massive decrease by any metric you want to use. It's cause to celebrate, and they can't spin it as some kind of a bad thing. I'll give them credit for not even trying.

Yet they take that and scream about how they need gun control legislation in spite of such a massive drop without it.

Now, they'd celebrate that drop if some part of their agenda went into effect and there had been a new gun control law they could attribute that too, though they'd still say they need more.

I get that the only correct number of homicides is zero. I've made that point myself a time or twelve. But that's not realistic.

No matter how good things get, the anti-gunners will still be pushing for gun control. They will never be happy.

What's more, no matter how much they get, there's always something more. I have yet to see a single gun control advocate say that we have the correct amount of gun control laws and they're done fighting. They just decide there's more to take.

They're never satisfied, either with the amount of gun control on the books or the decrease in "gun homicides."

So, if they're never going to stop, why should anyone take them seriously in the first place?