Why Outlawing Drugs and Guns Works

Dog pee

Today I’m going to explain why gun-control is not only entirely reasonable but also certain to be effective. Only the ignorant can deny this.

First, some orientation. Cement-headed NRA types need to recognize, and state manfully, that the illegalization of guns is in fact perfectly practical. History has shown this repeatedly. When the government outlaws something that huge numbers of people very much want, the outlawed items immediately disappear from society. This has been shown countless times.

When Washington outlawed alcohol, booze vanished overnight and everyone stopped drinking. Can anyone deny this? When Washington banned the use of cannabis, all of those of us made insane by Reefer Madness quit smoking dope, and today there is probably not a town in America in which one might buy a joint. Similarly, Washington made illegal the downloading of copyrighted music – which also stopped immediately. No one now has illegal music. Ask your adolescent daughter.

So with guns. They are small, easily smuggled, of high value to criminals and will be of higher value when only criminals have them, so it is virtually certain that they will vanish when the government says so.

Mexico, where I live, has stringent laws against guns, which have proved at least a partial success. Criminals have AKs, RPGs, and grenades, while nobody else has anything. That’s a partial success, isn’t it?

While I am in favor of illegalizing guns and thus ending crime, I think the principle should be democratically applied. Let us begin by disarming the Pentagon. If this seems unreasonable, ask yourself: who kills more children in a month, Ritalin-addled little boys in America, or the US Air Force in every Moslem country it has heard of? All I ask is an honest body count. I will accept your numbers.

read more: http://lewrockwell.com/reed/reed247.html

5 responses to “Why Outlawing Drugs and Guns Works

  1. Clever point with Pentagon. Agreed – why should that be any different?

    Even though an outlawing of guns probably won’t be fully effective, it wouldn’t harm to make it harder to gain access to automatic weapons and the like. Why would people want to have that anyway? Seems weird from a Danish point of view.

    Thanks for interesting blog and all the efforts you make posting arround here.

    Benjamin

  2. The funny part is that no doubt you tried to be a bit silly with this post to pass an idea yet it has the same quality of reasoning of the other libertarian agenda posts. (i.e. extremely low quality)

    I’m not saying anything if I agree or not with the bottom line, just with the quality of thought and reasoning.

    To put it on the subject of investing, it just shows that when it comes to investing we are able with effort to avoid our biases and emotions to a certain degree but when it comes to politics-to-religion range it’s obviously much more difficult.

    BTW, that kidney, did you donate it for free or sold it to the highest bidder?

  3. I disagree, Daniel, as I believe the point is made very well: banning things does not prevent them from getting in the hands of people who want them the most. Of course, banning does, however, appear to *reduce* availability, so you may feel it to be worth it just for that, but that’s another argument.

  4. Saj,

    Yes, your comment is at the same quality of the original post.

    BTW, I am surprised John did not make a post supporting free trade of body parts in all markets. People should have the freedom to sell their own kidneys, eyes, legs etc. Why not? The situation now is that desperate donors go to China or somewhere to donate, risking the lives of both the donor and receiver.

    Seriously, think about all those people which it can lift out of poverty, and all those rich people whose lives could be extended which means more taxes from them and…oops! I got carry away here with the taxes, sorry John! Won’t happen again.

    Anyhow, this should also support the Guns Thesis, because once you remove the ban, killings would go down, so there would be less body parts to spread around. This will be balanced out by the removal of the ban on the sale of body parts.

    D

  5. Yup, I am for FREE TRADE in body parts. Daniel misses two points:
    Free will on the part of donors and the recipients who currently die because donors lack incentives or a market to give their organs. As long as people have free exchanges then that is the only moral way to save lives. A law to prevent free exchange is essentially condemning people to die.

    Yes, in China, people are kidnapped and killed for their organs but that is a violation of free will and property rights–another issue entirely.

    Also, ask yourself this—did outlawing guns help the Jews in Nazi Germany from being killed. How about in Cambodia, Russia, China, etc. , etc.

    And the band plays on………..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.