Donnie Davis, October 5, 2017
Let’s end the debate on gun control. Criminals will always be able to acquire guns because they don’t abide by laws. Laws make it harder for ordinary citizens to buy weapons to protect themselves, while criminals access the black market.
In many states, purchasing a firearm requires passing a NICS check. It consists of running your ID through federal and state databases to screen people who have been involved in domestic disturbances or have criminal records.
In addition to the NICS background check, potential gun owners must meet local and state requirements. It is noteworthy that in some cities, such as Chicago, it is illegal to own handguns. In 2016, Chicago experienced 762 homicides; the gun control crowd bears a heavy burden explaining this. While some instinctually believe restrictions are not rigorous enough, libertarians argue the regulations cause black market activity, which in turn breeds violence. According to the article, “police and prosecutors agree that the city’s black market for illegal guns has thrived in no small part because of street gangs and their drug operations.”
To understand the nature of prohibition we can look at the market for illegal substances, where much study has been completed. Heroin is a perfect example. Though it is illegal to use, possess, manufacture, and sell, our country is experiencing an epidemic. The same is happening with other drugs such as methamphetamines and cocaine. In fact, politicsmadepublic.com reported that the illegal drug trade is one of the most profitable markets in the economy.
Alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century didn’t work either. Bathtub gin, speakeasies, rum runners, and the like managed to maneuver around the law. The black market in alcohol created the environment for organized crime to flourish, offering those willing to take the risk an opportunity to provide that service/commodity anyway. If not for alcohol prohibition, organized crime would have never existed in the capacity it did.
Promoters of gun control may point to a recent review of multiple studies that have shown regulations actually do lower homicide rates. However, the findings “were observational, which meant that researchers couldn’t control for variables. That’s a problem…” Failing to control for variables in any social study is huge when we consider the complexities of human society. The article also mentions bias within the team, though they do believe it was not shown in the results.
The real debate is control vs freedom. Permitting incremental losses in freedom for the illusion of gains in security is the path to serfdom. If we allow the government to violate the bill of rights, sooner or later freedom of speech will be legislated against…. oh wait, it already is.
100% freedom is preferable. passing legislation to control people shifts the focus from individual growth to political control. Rather than getting at the roots of violence, we try to manage the symptoms, ironically, using violence.
Laws are only necessary when there are victims; i.e. murder, rape, theft, kidnapping, assault, etc. Passing legislation which is designed to control our behavior violates of our liberty, and arguably the Ninth Amendment. Crime can only exist when someone can claim victimhood. Anything else is just a matter of personal opinion and moral values.
Should negligent behavior be legislated? No. Should negligent behavior that results in someone/thing being victimized be legislated? Could negligence increase the punishment for a crime? Most certainly, because there is a victim. But when we use the law to force people to abstain from doing things that don’t directly threaten us or our rights, we become the criminals.
Follow us at http://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian