Ban Porn but Not Bullets

America has a strange way of “protecting children.” Politicians foam at the mouth over the dangers of porn: banning it in libraries, restricting it online, and framing it as a national emergency. The moral panic machine runs hot: “Think of the children!” we’re told, as if seeing a naked body is a greater threat than dodging bullets in math class.

Let’s be clear: the same lawmakers pushing to scrub the internet of sex are the ones stuffing their campaign coffers with NRA money. They’ll ban books with LGBTQ characters and call it virtue, but they won’t lift a finger to stop the number one killer of children in America: guns.

That’s not a metaphor. It’s data. Guns kill more kids than cancer, car accidents, or anything else. But somehow, the people screaming about drag queens reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar don’t seem to care when a kid’s blood is mopped off the cafeteria floor.

Why? Because porn doesn’t fund their campaigns. Gun manufacturers do.

Let’s not pretend this is about protecting children. It’s about controlling culture while letting violence flourish. Banning porn is easy–symbolic, moralistic, performative. Addressing school shootings means regulating an industry, challenging power, and admitting that “freedom” without responsibility is a death sentence.

And maybe that’s the point. They don’t want to protect kids. They want to protect themselves–from change, from accountability, from the ugly truth that their priorities are rotten to the core.

So next time someone says they’re banning porn to “save the children,” ask them what they’re doing to stop the next school shooting.

Spoiler alert: probably nothing.