How the gun control thought process (doesn't) work

View from North Central IdahoThis is almost baffling. One way to interpret this is that they believe that once a gun has been involved in a crime they think it is more likely to be used to commit a crime in the future. Don’t laugh! This is what some people believe (see also here).

Another way to interpret this is that they believe this is, in essence, a zero sum game. They may actually believe that every time a gun is destroyed that is one less gun in existence. This is, of course, not true. It just increases the market size for new guns. Is this what they really want?

Considering the usual lack of sophistication I don’t think this is the most likely thought process but they may think that raising the price, by decreasing the supply, of guns can be achieved this way. Increasing the price means that fewer people can afford them making it more unlikely people will exercise their rights. The problem with this line of thinking is that the number of “crime guns” is so small compared to the total new gun sales, less than 1%, that any change is in the noise.

I believe the thought process is a lot simpler than this. So much simpler it can hardly be called thought. I think that they believe destroying a gun is an objectively good act, considered in isolation. Yes, the gun can be replaced. They don't care. Yes, the price might go up if they reduce the supply, but that's not the reasoning. Destroying those guns means fewer guns and fewer guns is objectively good.

This entry was published Thu Dec 20 06:47:19 CST 2018 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2018-12-07 22:31:32.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.