Gun Bans Don’t End Gun Violence, They Create It
Do Leftists believe gun bans will make guns evaporate?
Approximately 5 to 10 million AR-15 style rifles exist in America according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. If we were to ban these guns outright tomorrow, would they just vanish into thin air? That is what gun law advocates seem to be suggesting by their rhetoric. Whenever we hear reports of a shooting tragedy, the TV, newspapers, and social media PR campaigns fire off in unison for bans on “assault rifles” like the AR-15. We are told that supporters of such bans are doing what is necessary to save innocent lives. But how does a top-down prohibition of a desired object actually work in practice? Violently and disastrously, according to every case example we have.
Leftists seem to understand the inhumane disaster of drug prohibition. Marijuana laws have not ceased desire for the substance. Incarcerating suppliers of marijuana has not made the substance harder to find or prohibitively expensive. Rather, a violent black market has opened up that has enjoyed monopoly-level profit margins thanks to the relatively uncontested market space government bans create. Thankfully, the American people are slowly rejecting the violence of banning an object of desire of like marijuana, but millions of children continue to suffer from lifelong separation from their parents for nonviolent choices. Today, families anguish in communities plagued by contagious spells of reciprocal violence all created by drug control laws.
So why do many believe that a ban on AR-15s would defy the reality of the law of supply and demand? Some have suggested government buy-back programs for citizens to turn in their guns for compensation. However, that will only work for people that want to participate. For many others, a ban on AR-15s will only create more dangerous, unnecessary situations for police and peaceful citizens alike. Far from stopping lone wolves from buying an AR-15, gun bans will only harm children caught in the crosshairs. Like Royal Wilson.
Royal Wilson is an 8-year-old African American boy living in Chicago. As he was sleeping, he became a victim of his city’s gun laws. Suddenly, an explosion of flashing lights and bullhorn blasted the air. Royal and his family, including other young siblings, faced 31 police officers armed with assault rifles breaking into their home. The officers were acting on a search warrant based on a tip that there was an assault rifle in the house.
The only gun control Royal Wilson deserved that day was more control over government guns having access to his home for a nonviolent choice. What if Royal or his grandmother had made the wrong move in the chaos and triggered one of the dozens of officers to mistake them for a threat? What if he was playing with a toy mistaken for a gun? Where are the champions of AR-15 bans when it came to the assault rifles pointed by agents ordered to enforce a law against assault rifles?
Some cynical defenders of the status quo will try to redirect these questions to one centered only on race. Others focus on the excessive force Royal and his family faced that day in Chicago, as his 8-year-old frame stood outside his house handcuffed for an hour and a half in 37 degree freezing rain. Perhaps racial bias played a role in this case. There is not enough information available for this author to know. But if that is the only takeaway, then the act of violence against the Wilsons’ humanity inherit in gun laws remains untouched.
Royal Wilson and his family were terrorized by government assault rifles for the victimless act of allegedly possessing an assault rifle. After the agents ransacked the house completely, they were unable to find any firearm. But the damage was done. The agents were simply enforcing another bad law voters demanded. Why do busybodies have the right to send police into dangerous situations against families owning guns? What if a family wants to own an AR-15 to protect themselves from the ravages of a drug war-torn Chicago?
No family, no matter their race, income, or zip code, should have to face the violence of government gun bans. Although the irony of government assault rifles facing down children in search of assault rifles speaks for itself, it would be just as immoral if the agents were armed with pistols. Owning an AR-15 in the house does not victimize anyone. Enforcing laws against an AR-15 owning family does.
If gun ban advocates have their way, guns like AR-15s will not disappear. Violent gangs will just have a new cash cow market to corner. Psychologically disturbed would-be shooters will be able to find their weapon of choice from local black market channels the same way they find their prohibited drugs of choice.
The world would be a better place if everyone melted their guns away, including governments. In reality, guns do not disappear when we stomp our feet and scream “Ban!” They just become profitable products for gangs to sell to lone gunmen. Meanwhile, innocent families like the Wilsons are harmed by the foolish myth that governments have any ability to prohibit objects of desire.
Originally published on Townhall Finance.
David Gornoski is your neighbor. For readers’ feedback, [email protected]
Trending Now on Affluent Christian Investor
Sorry. No data so far.
The Affluent Mix
Another Theologian Falls For Socialism February 17, 2021 | Roger McKinney

GDP Bounced Back, Sort Of February 17, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Apathy And Envy For All February 17, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

The Global Stock Market Decompression February 17, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Why Things Are Bad And What You Should Do About It... February 17, 2021 | Terry Applegate

Gamestop Scandal: Who Is The Real Culprit?... February 11, 2021 | Roger McKinney

Who Has Economic Mobility? Everyone! February 11, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

Biden Deletes China COVID Evidence February 11, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

How Companies Pay Shareholders: High Earnings Quality Companies Do More Buybacks... February 11, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Volatility Vs. Capital Erosion February 11, 2021 | David Bahnsen

When Will The Party End? February 11, 2021 | Michael Pento

Back To Buybacks: Is It More About Dilution Than Concentration?... February 11, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Even Amnesty International Is Criticizing Facebook Censorship... February 5, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

The War On Poverty’s Results February 5, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

How Companies Pay Shareholders: Total Shareholder Payout A Better Approach?... February 5, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Interest Rate Threshold Keeps Dropping February 5, 2021 | Michael Pento

You Are What You Live Through As An Investor... February 5, 2021 | David Bahnsen

How Companies Pay Shareholders: What Do The Data Say?... February 5, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Stop Griping About Big Tech And Start Voting Your Shares... January 29, 2021 | Charles Bowyer

No, Rev. Warnock, The Bible Does Not Preach Socialism!... January 29, 2021 | Roger McKinney

Does The U.S. Actually Have Poor? January 29, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

Incompetence Rules Blue States January 29, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.