One might beg the forgiveness of the reader for an excursion into the problem of unintended consequences. Banning guns will not lead to the desire result of reduced violent crime, and it is actually quite dangerous in terms of merely acknowledging the historical fact that a disarmed people is much easier to oppress.
Much like the war on drugs, which led to thousands of innocent people being locked up for crimes whose victims were complicit, and with no real effect on drug usage, a ‘war against guns’ would be long and futile; and in the end it would accomplish only an endless list of unseen victims.
While the overwhelming majority of the time drug usage is a phase that young people dabble in until they become old enough to know better, the question is begged: how many lives have been wrecked, not by the drugs themselves, but by the federal laws and penalties intended to reduce drug usage? Similar to the war on poverty, whose ‘fighting’ of the situation of the relatively poor by subsidizing their income disparity, meanwhile lowering the incomes of the more successful, a ‘war on guns’ would lead to generations of wasted time and money.
The human wreckage of intergenerational poverty, and fathers replaced by the welfare state, is nevertheless brushed aside as an unavoidable casualty; nothing to worry about, because the aim is ‘social justice.’ And what of the ‘social justice’ of the children who grow up without father figures, whose lives were spent in broken homes, and in deteriorating communities?
It would be remiss not to mention the pie-in-the-sky dreams of
notorious warmonger Nobel Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama, who has espoused the dangerously naive and vaguely subversive drive to eliminate all nuclear weapons from the face of the earth via unilateral disarmament.
It is a bit of forgotten history that one of Barack Obama’s mentors, former Illinois State Senator Alice J. Palmer, paved his way into his first elected office as a state senator. She was a member of the U.S. Peace Council, an FBI-identified communist group, whose aims were in alignment with the Soviet goal of weakening the U.S.’ nuclear defense posture.
When it comes to the gun control argument, there is evidence that violent crimes drop as states adopt gun control. This conceptually has a bit of a parallel in international relations, because the nuclear proliferation to great power states that occurred during the Cold War led to what John Lewis Gaddis referred to as “the long peace.”
In other words, what scholar Stephen Walt coined a “balance of threat” helped develop a prolonged period of relative international quietude. The uncertainty of attacking a nuclear-armed state and the knowledge that unacceptable damage could be the result led to more peace, not more war. As Hedley Bull has put it, ‘mutual nuclear deterrence …does not make nuclear war impossible, but simply renders it irrational’. And many on the left fight what they deem to be irrational, simply because they intensely dislike it.
Such is the case with gun control. Since many people do not like guns, they instinctively believe that banishing them by decree would be the answer for lowering or even eliminating violent crime. If only it were that easy. It is truly the case that more guns means less crime, and it takes a bit of an open mind and some investigation to come to that conclusion.1 2