In recent years, America’s focus on deadly weapons has been directed toward guns. Now liberal groups across the nation are calling our attention toward the weapons that assisted in executing approximately 12 percent of the country’s homicides in 2013: knives or cutting instruments.

That’s right. A demand for knife control is on the rise. One supporter of the movement, who prefers to remain anonymous, gave the following statement:

“We spend so much time focusing on the fact that guns are killing people that we’re completely overlooking the fact that knives are just as dangerous. The survival rates of stab victims and gunshot victims are almost the same in some cases. If we let everyone in America buy a knife at the local supermarket, we may as well let them buy a rifle while they’re at it.”

I did the research—and by research, I mean I spent about 30 minutes reading various studies on Google—and this information doesn’t appear to be entirely false. According to one study, a victim who is stabbed in the stomach with a butcher knife only has a 3.5 percent higher chance of survival than someone who is shot in the same place with a pistol.

So, be prepared, everyone. Knife control activists are forming groups all over the country, and it’s only a matter of time before politicians begin to take notice.

…Okay, calm down. I just wanted to get your attention. A few crazies out there have actually suggested knife control before, but it hasn't become a nationwide movement because that would be ridiculous… right? Right.

And you know what? Supporting a gun ban seems just as ridiculous to me as supporting a knife ban.

I know that's a bold statement, so let me make this clear: I’m not against the concept of stricter gun control itself. I simply believe that at this point, gun control alone would fail just as tremendously as knife control would.

After each mass shooting in the United States, a popular example used to glorify strict gun control is Australia’s response to a mass shooting in 1996.After the shooting occurred, the Australian government created a bunch of strict gun control policies and held a mandatory buyback, which resulted in the confiscation of more than 650,000 firearms from its citizens. Since then, the nation reported a decline in crime and suicide rates, and there have been no mass murders.

Hey, that’s awesome! I’m happy it worked out for Australia, but America is already in too deep for something that simple to work for us. I could write a novel to support my claim, but I’ll stick to the basics.

In case you didn’t know, there are now more guns than there are people in the United States.

The Australian government was able to retrieve around 659,000 – approximately 20 percent – of the nation’s privately owned firearms. According to the World Bank, the country’s population was just over 18 million that year, which means that there were only about 18 guns per 100 people in Australia before the buyback took place.

In 2014, there were 317 million people in the United States and an estimated 357 million guns . Visualize this: There were enough firearms in America for every single person to walk around with a gun in one hand at all times and enough for 40 million of us to double-fist those killing machines.

It would be physically impossible for the government to collect enough guns to make a dent in that number.

Even if the U.S. government decided to fund a buyback, the criminals planning to use their weapons violently most likely wouldn’t surrender them in exchange for extra cash. Government officials would need to search every home in America and forcibly remove weapons to ensure that firearms were effectively taken out of the wrong hands.

However, those extreme measures would be totally unconstitutional, which reminds me that Australia’s freaking constitution doesn’t promise citizens the right to bear arms in the first place.

A mandatory confiscation of firearms in the United States would violate a few different amendments in our Bill of Rights–particularly the second. The intended purpose of the second amendment is partially to give Americans the ability to defend themselves. If it becomes illegal to carry or own firearms, then only criminals will have them, and those criminals will proceed to target honest and law-abiding citizens.

The bottom line: Neither side of this argument is winning.

That probably isn't where you were expecting me to go with this article, right? I wasn't expecting to come to this conclusion either. It’s a tough reality to face, but this issue is more complex than simply taking a side.

We all agree that something must be done to reduce gun violence, which is unlikely to happen without decreasing the presence of guns in our nation. At the same time, it’s just unrealistic to suggest that following in Australia’s footsteps will work for us either.

When it comes down to whether or not America implements gun control, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t – and if we do, it will take a great deal of creativity and/or drastic measures to make it work.

Strict firearm control alone might be effective under different circumstances, but it’s just not enough in a nation where the citizens are already outnumbered by guns.