I tire from hearing, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." I tire from hearing, "Gun control would not deter crime." Mostly I tire from hearing, "Gun control laws won't change anything." These arguments are not only inaccurate, unquantifiable and, at times, archaic; they also are off topic to the real problems gun control proponents and opponents debate (or should).

Most often, I find myself frustrated about the gun control debate because the issue isn't about the firearm itself. The discussion should be about government. Not about the people who died, but the people who are still alive.

Here's what most people would think to be a reasonable end: a gun buyback program, like Australia did. I won't even address how criminals wouldn't sell their guns, nor how the majority of constituents would keep their guns. The problem I see with this approach is upkeep.

The law is passed, local precincts are allowed to purchase, document, handle, and then dispose of firearms from citizens. Let's say in order to meet the demand, each district relegates five to 10 percent of local law enforcement to office work to dispose of the firearms.

At a minimum, we are going to see five to 10 percent fewer patrols, fewer house calls, or the like. This impact (and probable rise in crime) could be minimized by hiring more officers, which would require a re-distribution of taxpayer dollars, or acquiring more taxpayer dollars. Or, we make a new agency or building or person in charge of all this -- any route requires manpower and money. Unfortunately this would take ages to get through Congress, if at all.

However, we are humans. A five to 10 percent increase on just the money that goes to police shouldn't be something that stops us all from saving the lives of many, right?

Some pro-gun control subscribers also believe that the buyback program wouldn't work for the reasons I refused addressing above, and have offered up "bounty" programs (unfortunately, this is real). The idea being if the state were to outlaw owning a firearm, then by reporting your neighbor, you could see a profit from the state acquiring the firearms, however, this is the exact kind of program most people would describe as tyranny. Please do not try and make this idea a reality.

Ultimately, the fewer the citizens with firearms, the more the government will have a monopoly on use of deadly force. Which for some people, this is a fine trade off. Some want to believe it is possible for the government to become large enough that they will be safe from random acts of terror, always.

Just for coherency let's pretend the bounty program, buyback program, and all the constraints on ownership (background checks, waiting periods, etc.) worked, guns are gone. Last week I wrote about how 3D printing is expected to be a household ability in a few years' time. If this is true, even if you were to ban all guns in the U.S., anybody could 3D print one today. Wired.com even has the article, for you curious types.

So, this means, that for under $4,000 I could create the exact kind of assault weapons used in tragic events (Sig Sauer MCX .223, AR-15, etc.). If Singularity University was correct in my previous article, then, this process will only become faster, cheaper, and more accessible as time continues. For all we know, there could be people using public resources to machine these weapons now (at a university, company, etc.).

My point is simply this: gun control isn't about the guns. It's about people's need to feel safe. Unfortunately, hopefully this article demonstrates that there will never be a government large enough to keep everyone protected, always. Some governments can't even keep presidents safe, much less an entire nation.

Here's why: if we wanted a government to completely ensure our safety, we would need a huge machine. A machine so large it could monitor all web traffic from every device simultaneously, read encrypted data, flag devices in violation of rules, humans would then monitor these people, and act as required. The U.S. already monitors some citizens and questionable people on a small scale; nobody wants this on a large scale. That machine described above doesn't even include the massively funded police force we would need to absolutely enforce these laws, if we wanted to ensure their efficacy.

The people want to feel more safe, want more lives to be saved, and want there to be less of an ability for someone who is disassociated with the world or otherwise damaged or radical to be able to make a lasting mark on society.

We should embrace this. Truly, we should embrace the idea that there might need to be more stringent processes in acquiring firearms. Mental health checks might need to be something we consider, waiting periods might need to be something we consider, background checks might need to be something we consider, personality tests might need to be something we consider. There is no one solution, and ultimately this topic will not resolve the abysmal mental health infrastructure we have, nor the proliferation of radical thought of all spectrums.

Do I need an assault weapon, now? No. Currently, there is no legislation that would prove a problem for me to get one, and even if there were I could still make one. Are there any rights of mine being violated allowing for one to protect myself? No. But what if there were an orange megalomaniac in office that didn't like the constituents badmouthing him and imprisoned them falsely and secretively? Yeah I'd take one then. What if there were a disconnected from the youth woman who wanted a larger monitoring force online via the NSA and CIA enforced by the FBI, and was not transparent about it to the people consistent with her previous actions? Yeah I'd take one, then, too.

We should not embrace the idea that gun control is our saving grace. I implore you all to think about what you are proposing to give to the government in concessions, versus what you believe you are getting in return. For there should be no misconception: gun control would see a decrease in mass shootings. We'd never get rid of them from that legislation alone. However, it would come at a cost of a more powerful government, something I think the Snowden revelations and the Family Jewels continue to reveal we do not need.

In conclusion, I do not think gun control is our best effort to fighting the biggest battle. As mentioned in my previous article, our generation moves forward fighting radicalism and hyperinflation. Going along that same statement, a larger more powerful government will also not fight this battle for us. We need to work together as a society, and use those American ideals I mentioned of looking out for our neighbors, and only then will these mass issues of violence cease to exist.