Gun control and the end of fighting back

With yet another school shooting, this one on our metaphorical doorstep, the gun control debate has been raised yet again. More laws are being considered, and more regulation being called for.
Plug the loopholes, scream the commercials. Groups of rabid mothers go forth and fight to ban more guns, to make big, scary-looking weapons illegal. After all, we don’t want criminals to have powerful weapons, right?
The thought process here is so backwards that most sane Americans are left scratching their heads. What did banning anything do? Simply making weapons illegal won’t do a thing to change actual violent people with dangerous intent.
There’s an old saying that a seven-year-old with a pencil and intent to kill is infinitely more dangerous than a Navy SEAL with all the gear without intent or desire to kill. Not one intensely violent psychopath ever said “Well, I’m completely insane and want nothing more to kill people. However, it seems that guns are illegal, so I will go home and work on my garden.” What happens when someone can’t use their ideal means to carry out their goals? They’ll use the next best means. Just take a look at England, where after banning guns, knife crimes increased massively. Now, knife ownership in England is highly regulated and crime is still rampant.
That point aside, when did something being illegal ever stop someone motivated? “Oh, just make gun ownership illegal, and there will be no gun crime.” There are two types of people: law abiding citizens and criminals. Now, when guns are not completely illegal, citizens and criminals have guns. If guns were illegal, law abiding citizens would not have guns, and the criminals? They would have guns. In fact, they’d be the only one with guns.
Activists calling for banning guns must have a very distorted view of reality. Do drug-free zones really keep drugs out? Do potheads and junkies see “Drug Free Zone” signs and unload their stash? Speeding is illegal, yet street racing is a highly popular activity. Shoplifting is against the law, but working loss prevention for a store is a career on its own.
The entire mindset being pushed by activists is worrying. Citizens don’t need weapons, citizens don’t need to be able to fight back for themselves, it’s the job of the authority and government. If one should find themselves in a bank being robbed, the proper course of action is to get down, be quiet, obey, listen to instructions and don’t make trouble.
Is it simply a coincidence that the proper course of action when being faced with a violent offender is the same that should be followed when the police bust in with a no-knock warrant? Just get down, be quiet, obey, listen to instructions and don’t make trouble.
The citizens don’t need to be disarmed, people need to be armed and empowered to solve their own problems. If 85 percent of bank robberies ended in the robber getting taken down by bystanders, would robbers feel inclined to knock over more banks? Certainly less than they would now, when citizens are being taught to do whatever the guy with the gun tells them to do.