One of the lines of reasoning about immigration that you hear a lot from liberals is: well, the illegals are already here, so there's nothing you can do about it. What are you going to do, deport them all?
There's some truth to that -- it would be difficult to round every last one up and send them back to their home countries. (Even though plenty of countries -- like Mexico -- do exactly that.)
But somehow the liberals employ a completely different line of reasoning when it comes to guns. What they would really like -- ideally -- is to confiscate all handguns not belonging to the government.
But there are roughly 300 million guns circulating in this country, as opposed to 10 million illegal immigrants. And it's far easier to hide a gun than it is an illegal immigrant.
What are the odds that a gun ban would cause anybody with murder in mind to turn in his gun? (Anybody willing to risk the death penalty or life in prison for murder is not going to worry about the penalty for merely owning an unlicensed gun.)
Another contradiction: liberals disapprove of stop and frisk in the high crime areas where most murders take place. They prefer to concentrate on confiscation from law-abiding gun owners in suburban and rural areas. (The only people who would turn in their guns, by definition, would be law-abiding.)
Do liberals think a gun ban would result in all gang members dutifully showing up at the nearest police station to peacefully surrender weapons which are already illegal anyway?
According to liberal logic, the way to cut down the number of gun deaths is to take guns from the people who have permits, not from criminals with illegal guns.