Ah, gun control. The issue makes otherwise intelligent people sound like complete buffoons. So it's no surprise that a debate on the issue should be prominent at Notre Dame, where intelligence abounds, but common sense is as easy to find as a natural tan in Michiana.

Both extremes in the debate offer ample amusement. Radical gun lovers claim that the Second Amendment fully grants them the right to hunt rabbits with anti-tank missiles. Anti-gun pundits claim that we need to hold the availability of guns responsible, not the evil tendencies of humans.

Sadly enough, the truth is closer to your gun-loving Uncle Rufus up in Montana than the legislation-happy gun control zealots, which speaks volumes. As much as I hate to side with the guys who wear fluorescent Jeff Gordon hats, their stance is, I'm afraid, more logical.

Personally, I would be happier than a guy with a pocket full of quarters in a nickel stripper bar if banning guns would have any significant effect on gun violence and crime in general. But Prohibition and the "war" on drugs teach us valuable lessons: as long is there is a high demand for something — whether it be guns, money for sex or drugs, then your laws must reflect this.

Though comparing gun use to prostitution or substance abuse is rather "apples and oranges," it is still an important point. Whereas prostitution and recreational drug use are illegal (except in Nevada and the Mayor's office in D.C., respectively), there are legitimate uses for guns by civilians, whether they be self defense, sport or other legal and legitimate means.

There are several horrible arguments in favor of gun control — never mind the fact that more restrictions are no guarantee of less crime. We have the "It works in England" simpletons who disregard societal factors as a role in gun violence (By the way, prohibition is alive and well in Saudi Arabia).

These individuals, when studying statistics on gun-related violence, reason that by making a law to take the gun away, the crime vanishes as well, or at least decreases considerably. Won't these criminals find other means to purchase weapons? Of course they will, and they already do. Allow me to introduce the phrase "black market" to the world.

Wouldn't our efforts be better spent in handling the problems leading to the crimes or even addressing the criminal? And if they would, is it adequate to assume that because we don't know how to go about effectively stopping the criminals, we should just pass more laws in the meantime to appease the electorate and convince them we're making a difference? The answers to these questions grow more obvious by the hour.

The issue won't go away, because it provides fodder for gutless politicians to bolster their images as "caring" more about people than about an outdated Amendment they perceive as "taken out of context." (Interestingly enough, these same clowns trample the premises of the First Amendment.)

And if they ever succeed in banning guns, they will gaze cluelessly at unfaltering crime rates, pondering the failure of clueless advocates of years past.

• Firing Ideological Blanks