Hey! Gun Banners: Decide What You Really Want

NEW YORK ( TheStreet) -- For the first time in at least five to 10 years, gun haters have a real chance to push legislation through. The biggest problem they face is not the gun lobby, but their own ignorance of the situation.

Watching gun banners talk about banning this or banning that is at a comic level equal to John Madden trying to discuss the merits between various Barbie doll dresses as they compare to Bratz dresses. It's painfully obvious most of them have little to no understanding. Worse still, most of their efforts are wasted on unproductive goals.

Sometimes the gun banners are their own worst enemies because what they think they want, and what they really want are usually two totally different things.

Usually they are talking about the so-called "assault weapons." Technically, the term is usually used incorrectly when referring to the "evil black rifles," a.k.a. modern sporting rifles; but in fairness, gun rights advocates often go over the top trying to explain the difference.

Gun banners love to show off these evil looking weapons and proclaim on the top of a soap box how they serve no purpose. Recently a senator from California stated she was going to introduce another piece of legislation similar to the assault weapons ban of 1994. She is as confused on the issue as any. Instead of focusing improving safety, she is focused on narrowing purchasing choices. She simply doesn't know what she really wants.

It's clear that modern sporting rifles are not a problem relatively speaking when it comes to crime. If you could stop killings by banning items, you would want to ban hammers before you ban evil black rifles. According to the FBI blunt objects like hammers, clubs, etc. kill more people than evil black rifles each year.

How about knifes? If you really want to stop killings, you would ban knifes before rifles. Gun banners don't understand what they really want any more than Maddon fumbling around with a Barbie dress with his large fingers.

What about the children? As a father of three boys, nothing is of greater importance to me than the safety of my sons. If I believed a cosmetic restriction on guns would make my boys safer, I would not hesitate to advocate threaded barrels, adjustable stocks, pistol grips, and bayonet lugs get banned.

I can't advocate banning these features because as a father and as someone who has actually taken the time to look at the numbers, it's obvious the safety of my sons will not improve. If you really want to save the lives of children, gun banners would spend their efforts trying to ban swimming pools instead of guns.

Swimming pools are much more dangerous, accordng to a government report , and result in many more grieving parents than guns do. Why don't more gun banners join the residential swimming pool ban organizations?

Because gun ban proponents are more interested in banning guns than saving lives, even if they don't know it. The numbers make it very clear, if you want to save the most children, you ban swimming pools long before considering a ban on modern sporting rifles.

Beating the drum of gun bans are improving the bottom lines of Strum Ruger ( RGR) and Smith & Wesson ( SWHC) than hiring the best sales people possible.

I talked to several gun stores in my area and spent time reading the popular gun related forums and everything remotely related to a gun ban is selling at a record pace. A great example is Chad Olson from C&C Pawnbrokers, a local gun manufacturer and retailer. Olson said that in over 10 years of business, their sales are stronger right now than ever before. Olson says his biggest problem is restocking his inventory because of panic buying depleting inventory of suppliers.

Cue Maddon with another doll dress: Up to now, the net impact of gun banners is massively more gun sales. Fortunately, the increase in sales shouldn't result in higher rates of murder if past statistics continue to hold true. As a father of three small boys, I have ideas based on logic and a true desire to keep my sons safe.

The first thing is to end the "victim zones," a.k.a. "gun free zones." They clearly don't work. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't. Yes, we all want schools to be gun free zones including me, but it's time to make grown up decisions based on the evidence in front of us. The evidence is crystal clear that killers are selecting their targets based on their perception of softness.

Allowing concealed carry removes the certainty for killers that they may wreak havoc unabated until other guns arrive to stop them. You can't get around the fact that the solution to stopping a killer is using more guns to restrain them. The other guns are usually carried by police, but not always.

Once we all agree that adding more guns into a gun free zone can stop a killer, it's a short step to agree that if killers believe some of the staff may have firearms, potential criminals will be less as likely to target those areas. Think about this, we have had many mass shootings in victim zones (gun free zones), but we haven't had mass shootings at gun ranges.

If guns really are the problem, one would reasonably expect more shootings at gun ranges and less in gun-free zones. The opposite is true because one is a very scary place to go on a killing spree, and the other isn't.

It's not a coincidence, and if you really want to protect children like I do, you will let the evidence speak for itself. When the right people are not restricted in carrying a gun, the location is safer.

At the time of publication, the author held no positions in any of the stocks mentioned.

This article is commentary by an independent contributor, separate from TheStreet's regular news coverage.